UC-NRLF 

BS 


Ube  mnfversits  of  Cbtcaao 


THE  SOURCES  OF  LUKE'S  PASSION 
NARRATIVE 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO   THE   FACULTY 

OF   THE   GRADUATE   SCHOOL   OF   ARTS   AND   LITERATURE 

IN   CANDIDACY  FOR   THE  DEGREE   OF 

DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY 

DEPARTMENT  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  AND  EARLY  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE 
IN  THE  GRADUATE  DIVINITY  SCHOOL 


BY 

ALFRED  MORRIS  PERRY 


HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC  STUDIES  IN  LITERATURE 
RELATED  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Second  Series— Vol.  IV,  Part  2 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 
CHICAGO,  EDLiNQISL_ 

1919 


EXCHANGE 


mntversitp  of  Cbtcago 


THE  SOURCES  OF  LUKE'S  PASSION 
NARRATIVE 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  FACULTY 

OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF   ARTS  AND  LITERATURE 

IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE   OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

DEPARTMENT  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  AND  EARLY  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE 
IN  THE  GRADUATE  DIVINITY  SCHOOL 


BY 

ALFRED  MORRIS  PERRY 


HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC  STUDIES  m  LITERATURE 
RELATED  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Second  Series— Vol.  IV,  Part  2 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 
CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

1919 


COPYRIGHT  1920  BY 
THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO 

All  Rights  Reserved 


Published  January  1920 


Biblical  text  of  the  American  Revised  Version  used  by 
permission  of  Thomas  Nelson  &  Sons 


-'•••'• 


Composed  and  Printed  By 

The  University  of  Chicago  Press 

Chicafco,  Illinois,  U.S.A. 


ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

The  author  desires  to  express  here  his  gratitude  to  the  Faculty  of  the 
Department  of  New  Testament  and  Early  Christian  Literature  in  the 
University  of  Chicago  for  their  interest  and  assistance  in  the  course 
of  this  study,  and  especially  to  Professor  Ernest  DeWitt  Burton,  under 
whose  direction  and  with  the  benefit  of  whose  help  and  criticism  this 
study  has  been  pursued,  and  also  to  the  faculty  of  the  Hartford  Theolo- 
gical Seminary  and  to  the  donor  of  the  John  S.  Welles  Fellowship,  who 
have  encouraged  and  made  possible  this  investigation. 


456537 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

INTRODUCTION i 

The  Problem  of  Luke's  Passion-Narrative,  i ;  Limits  of  the  Investi- 
gation, 2;  The  Possibility  of  Textual  Corruption,  2;  Lack  of  Par- 
allel Material  in  the  First  Gospel,  4. 

CHAPTER 

I.  THE  LITERARY  METHOD  OF  THE  THIRD  EVANGELIST      ....          5 
Purpose  and  Chief  Interest,  5 ;  Luke's  Use  of  His  Markan  Source,  6; 
The  Other  Principal  Sources  of  the  Third  Gospel,  8;  Luke's  Use  of 
His  Non-Markan  Sources,  13 ;  Editorial  Additions  by  the  Evangelist, 
15;  Doublets,  17;  The  Principles  of  Luke's  Literary  Procedure,  19. 

II.  LITERARY  PHENOMENA  OF  THE  PASSION-NARRATIVE  IN  LUKE     .        21 
Limits  of  Agreement  with  Mark,  21 ;  Additions  and  Omissions  in  the 
Narrative,  23;   Transpositions  of  the  Order  of  the  Narrative,  24; 
Interweaving  and  Conflation,   25;    Sources  of  the  Non-Markan 
Materials,  26. 

III.  THE  NON-MARKAN  MATERIALS  LN  THE  PASSION-NARRATIVE   .     .      31 
Classes  of  Materials,  31;    Discriminating  Principles,  32;    Initial 
Section,  19:1-27,  33;  Jesus'  Public  Ministry  in  Jerusalem,  33;  The 
Apocalyptic  Discourse,  35;    The  Last  Supper  and  the  Farewell 
Discourse,  38 ;  Events  Connected  with  the  Arrest  of  Jesus,  42 ;  The 
Trial  of  Jesus,  44;  Jesus'  Death  and  Burial,  47;  The  Resurrection 
Appearances,  51;  Conclusions,  54. 

IV.  THE  INDEPENDENCE  OF  THE  J  MATERIALS 56 

Vocabulary,  56;    Synonyms,  59;   Literary  Style,  62;    Syntax,  64; 
Lukan  Characteristics,  66;   Semitic  Idiom,  67;  Thought  and  View- 
point, 70;  The  Narrative  of  Luke  19:1-27,  75. 

V.  THE  LITERARY  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  JERUSALEM  SOURCE    .        77 
Unity:  in  General,  77;   in  Detail,  83;  Literary  Form:   a  Written 
Document,  85;  Greek  Its  Language,  86 ;  Content  and  Order,  86. 

VI.  THE  RELATIONS  OF  THE  JERUSALEM  SOURCE 90 

Provenance  and  Author,  90;  Date,  92;  The  Fall  of  Jerusalem, 
96;  Purpose  and  Historical  Value,  98;  Literary  Relations:  to 
Other  Lukan  Sources,  100;  to  Mark,  101;  to  Matthew,  102;  to  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  103;  Conclusion,  105. 

APPENDIX  I 

The  Agreements  and  Divergences  of  Luke's  Passion-Narrative  with 
Mark 107 

APPENDIX  II 

Vocabulary  of  the  Jerusalem  Document no 

APPENDIX  III 

Text  of  the  Jerusalem  Source 116 

vii 


INTRODUCTION 

In  the  stream  of  the  literary  criticism  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  the 
teachings  of  Jesus  and  the  central  portion  of  his  ministry  have  been 
borne  along  upon  the  full  flood,  and  many  have  been  the  reconstructions  of 
that  algebraic  "  x  "  of  the  synoptic  problem,  the  ever-elusive  Q,  and  many 
the  discussions  of  the  nature  and  value  of  the  source  from  which  the  first 
and  the  third  evangelists  drew  their  account  of  Jesus'  teachings;  but 
the  culminating  portion  of  the  Gospels,  the  great  event  which  was  central 
in  the  evangel  of  the  one  great  literary  apostle,  has  been  becalmed,  as 
it  were,  in  an  unstirred  eddy  apart  from  the  great  currents  of  discussion. 
Whatever  the  reasons  for  this  neglect,  whether  the  failure  here  of  the 
major  criterion  of  synoptic  criticism — materials  common  to  the  First  and 
the  Third  Gospel  only — or  merely  the  too  ready  assumption  that  there 
are  here  no  materials  demanding  attention,  the  fact  remains  that  the 
literary  critic  generally  has  had  little  or  nothing  to  tell  concerning  the 
narrative  of  the  Passion. 

Since  the  days  of  Wilke,1  to  be  sure,  it  has  often  been  observed  that 
the  Passion-narrative  of  the  Third  Gospel  presents  striking  additions  to 
and  corrections  of  the  Markan  version ;  but  these  divergences  have  either 
been  minimized,  as  by  Wilke  himself,2  or  else  they  have  been  treated 
singly,  as  by  Holtzmann3  and  others,  and  their  full  import  collectively 

1 C.  G.  Wilke,  Der  Urevangelist  (1838),  pp.  482  f.  "Faktum  ist  dass  bis  n.  34  [Mark 
10:13-16  and  parallels],  kein  Stuck  vorkommt,  das  von  den  Referenten  in  vollig 

gleicher  Form  und  mit  denselben  Geschichtsmomenten  gegeben  ware Von 

n.  50  bis  57  [Mark  14:  i  to  end  and  parallels!  aber  gibt  Lukas  fast  durchgangig  eigen- 
tiimliche  Darstellungen. " 

2  Ibid.,  p.  540:  "In  der  letzten  Geschichte  Jesu,  worm  Lukas  am  meisten  von 
den  Nebenberichten  abweicht,  zeigt  an  dem,  was  er  mit  den  Nebenzahlern  zugleich 
erwahnt,  theils  die  Ordnung  und  Stellung,  dass  er  demselben  Leitfaden  folgte  mit 
jenen,  theils  an  gewissen  Stellen  die  Fassung  des  Ausdrucks,  dass  er  mit  seinen  Nach- 
barreferenten  die  gleiche  griechische  Textvorlage  gehabt  haben  miisse,  so  wie  es  sich 
nicht  verbirgt,  dass  er  nach  schriftstellerischen  Zwecken  und  nach  seiner  Weise 
abgeandert." 

3H.  J.  Holtzmann,  Die  synoptische  Evangelien  (1863),  p.  210:  "In  .den  drei 
letzten  Capiteln  des  Evangeliums  ist  dagegen  der  urspriingliche  Bericht  so  vielfach 
und  durch  so  eigentiimliche  Relationen  modificirt,  dass  man  die  Erzahlung  des  Lucas 
sogar  schon  in  ganz  andere  Abteilungen  zerlegen  und  aus  anderen  Quellen  ableiten 
wollte,  als  die  Seitenberichte.  Das  aber  auch  hier  der  Leitfaden  bei  alien  Dreien 
derselbe  ist,  hat  schon  Wilke  erwiesen. "  And  cf.  also  pp.  237  ff.  So,  most  recently, 
Wellhausen,  Das  Evangdium  Lucae  (1904). 

711  1 


2  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

has  not  been  observed.  There  are,  however,  exceptions  to  this  rule, 
and  some  scholars  have  pointed  out  the  fact  that  there  might  be  here 
materials  awaiting  more  thorough  analysis.  So  Sir  John  Hawkins1 
has  shown  that,  while  the  Passion-narrative  of  Luke  (beginning  at 
Luke  22:14,  with  the  account  of  the  Last  Supper)  is  but  two-fifths  as 
long  as  the  remaining  portions  of  the  Lukan  narrative  derived  from 
Mark,  there  is  twice  as  much  addition  of  new  material,  nearly  twice  as 
many  inversions  of  the  Markan  order,  and  but  half  as  much  agreement 
with  the  Markan  language.  And  Burkitt2  even  ventures  the  suggestion 
that  this  portion  of  Luke's  narrative  is  derived  almost  wholly  from  a 
non-Markan  source. 

It  must  then  be  apparent  that  there  are  here  facts  sufficiently  im- 
portant to  warrant  serious  investigation;  the  more  so  since  the  demon- 
stration of  a  second  independent  source  of  the  Passion  history  might  have 
considerable  significance  in  other  departments  of  gospel  study.  To 
this  investigation  it  is  the  purpose  of  this  study  to  turn,  but  to  deal 
with  a  single  phase  of  the  problem  only,  the  question  what  are  the  sources 
of  the  narrative  in  the  Third  Gospel  of  Jesus'  ministry  and  Passion  in 
Jerusalem. 

The  limits  of  the  investigation  must  be  set  more  widely,  however, 
than  those  assumed  by  Hawkins  and  Burkitt,  and  the  entire  closing 
section  of  the  Gospel,  from  the  point  (Luke  19:  i)  where  Jesus  begins  to 
approach  Jerusalem  to  the  close,  must  be  considered  in  the  discussion. 
To  this  entire  section,  Luke  19:1 — 24:53,  will  be  applied  the  term 
"  Passion-narrative. " 

Two  limitations  upon  the  study  must  here  be  noted.  The  first  of 
these  is  the  impossibility  of  attaining  mathematically  accurate  results 
in  any  study  of  the  synoptic  problem,  a  fact  that  is  self-evident  in 
itself  to  anyone  who  will  consider  for  a  moment  the  fact  of  textual 
corruption,  yet  one  that  is  only  too  often  quite  overlooked  in  attempts 
at  a  solution  of  the  problem.  Allowance  must  be  made  for  a  considerable 
margin  of  error,  not  only  in  the  minor  details  of  the  text,  but  even  in  the 
larger  features  of  the  narrative.  When  we  consider  that  until  the  rise 
of  the  canonical  concept  in  the  age  of  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian  the  Gospels 
were  valued  in  large  part  for  the  authority  of  the  words  of  the  Lord  which 
they  contained,  and  that  even  Tatian  could  treat  them  with  a  consider- 

1 W.  Sanday,  ed.,  Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem,  pp.  76-94.  For  a  more 
detailed  study  of  the  differences  and  a  theory  of  their  origin  see  P.  Feine,  Eine  wr- 
kanonische  Ueberlieferung  des  Lukas  (1891),  passim. 

3  F.  C.  Burkitt,  The  Gospel  History  and  Its  Transmission,  p.  134. 

72 


THE    SOURCES   OF   LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  3 

able  degree  of  freedom  in  interweaving,  editing,  and  even  in  the  omission 
of  uncongenial  passages,  it  must  at  once  be  clear  that  the  processes  of 
textual  corruption  and  of  general  adaptation  must  have  gone  on  at 
a  far  more  accelerated  pace  than  in  the  subsequent  period  through 
which  we  are  able  to  trace  the  textual  history. 

It  is  to  be  expected,  therefore,  that  omissions,  additions,  and  other 
changes  be  found  which  are  assignable  to  alterations  of  the  narrative 
after  it  had  left  the  hands  of  that  editor  in  whose  mind  it  first  received 
its  general  outline,  and  whom  we  are  accustomed  to  call  the  evangelist. 
On  the  textual  side,  in  particular,  these  may  sometimes  be  of  considerable 
importance,  and  we  may  note  especially  the  ever-present  possibility  of 
harmonistic  corruption  by  which  two  accounts  are  brought  into  a  closer 
agreement  than  they  originally  had.  The  received  text  is  full  of  examples 
of  this  sort  of  thing  which  subsequent  editors  have  agreed  in  eliminat- 
ing ;  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  refer  to  examples,  whether  of  the  addition 
of  materials  from  a  parallel  account  in  another  Gospel  (as  in  Matt. 
23:14;  17:21;  Luke  8:45;  and  the  expansion  of  Luke's  version  of  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  Luke  11:2-4)  or  of  the  revision  of  the  language  to  that 
of  a  parallel  account  (as  in  Matt.  19: 17 ;  Luke  6:48;  10: 27).  Occasion- 
ally, too,  this  corruption  may  have  taken  the  reverse  course,  and, 
become  a  differentiating  corruption,  have  destroyed  a  parallelism  which 
once  existed,  a  fact  which  becomes  of  importance  in  the  explanation  of 
some  (though  by  no  means  of  all)  of  the  slight  agreements  of  Matthew 
with  Luke  in  the  triple  tradition.  Thus  it  is  simplest  to  suppose  that 
in  Mark  5:28  the  words  TOV  Kpacriredov,  which  appear  in  both  the 
Matthew  and  the  Luke  parallel,  are  really  the  original  reading  of  Mark 
also,  and  were  lost  in  the  transmission  of  the  text  subsequent  to  the 
production  of  the  exemplars  used  by  the  first  and  the  third  evangelists; 
and  similar  instances  appear  in  Mark  2:12:3:18;  4:11;  9:19;  etc. 

These  facts,  of  textual  corruption  and  of  general  fluidity  of  the  early 
gospel  transmission,  have  a  twofold  bearing  upon  our  study.  First, 
they  cast  upon  all  conclusions  a  shadow  of  insecurity.  Yet  this  uncer- 
tainty must  not  be  exaggerated,  for  nothing  is  more  striking  than  the 
manner  in  which  the  Gospels  have  preserved  their  individuality  and  their 
distinctive  differences ;  the  insecurity,  after  all,  amounts  to  but  a  small 
margin  of  error,  and  the  general  facts  of  the  synoptic  problem  stand  out 
unaltered  by  such  considerations.  On  the  other  hand  this  margin  of 
error  has  its  favorable  aspect,  inasmuch  as  it  relieves  the  critic  from  the 
necessity  of  explaining  every  minute  exception  to  the  generally  appli- 
cable rules.  In  both  of  these  aspects,  however,  the  fact  of  slight  textual 

73 


4  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

uncertainty  must  stand  in  the  background  of  every  discussion  of  the 
synoptic  problem. 

A  second  limitation,  of  a  different  nature,  is  imposed  by  the  fact 
that  within  the  limits  of  this  study  the  Third  Gospel  shares  with  the 
First  Gospel  practically  no  material  not  derived  from  Mark,  and  the 
investigation  must  proceed  from  the  observation  of  the  evangelist's 
literary  method  of  dealing  with  his  sources,  as  it  can  be  determined  from 
other  portions  of  his  work,  to  the  inference  as  to  what  must  have  been 
the  sources  employed  in  his  narrative  of  the  closing  period  of  Jesus' 
ministry.  Our  first  task,  therefore,  must  be  the  determination  of  Luke's 
literary  method,  from  which  we  may  go  on  to  the  description  of  the  lit- 
erary phenomena  of  the  Passion-narrative,  and  then  to  the  inference  as 
to  the  sources  there  used  and  the  description  of  those  sources. 


74 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  LITERARY  METHOD  OF  THE  THIRD  EVANGELIST 
I.   PURPOSE  AND  CHIEF  INTEREST 

In  the  preface  to  his  work  the  third  evangelist  states  clearly  what 
is  his  purpose  in  the  compilation  of  his  Gospel — "  having  traced  the  course 
of  all  things  accurately  from  the  first,  to  write  in  order"  "a  narrative 
concerning  those  matters  which  have  been  fulfilled  among  us"  "that 
thou  mightest  know  the  certainty  concerning  the  things  wherein  thou 
wast  instructed."  Thus  plainly  he  avows  an  interest  in  history;  he 
has  investigated  the  facts  to  the  extent  of  his  ability  and  would  now  set 
them  forth  with  the  conscientious  care  of  the  historian.  But,  while 
his  purpose  is  to  write  history,  his  ultimate  motive  is  that  of  "edifi- 
cation"; only  he  believes  that  faith  rests  most  securely  upon  fact  and 
relies  confidently  upon  the  historical  basis  of  Christianity.  The  domi- 
nant interest  of  his  Gospel,  therefore,  is  to  be  the  narration  of  facts, 
the  presentation  of  history. 

The  working  of  this  interest  is  apparent  throughout  the  Gospel. 
It  is  necessary  only  to  compare  Luke's  arrangement  of  materials  in 
narrative  form  with  the  topical  arrangement  which  Matthew  chose  to 
adopt  to  be  convinced  of  its  reality.  And  it  appears  also  in  the  almost 
labored  endeavor  of  the  evangelist  to  fix  as  accurately  as  might  be  the 
location  in  history  of  the  events  he  narrates,  as  in  his  elaborate  chronolo- 
gies in  Luke  1:5;  2:1-2;  3:1-2,  and  his  correction  of  such  errors  in 
Mark  as  the  reference  to  "Abiathar  the  high-priest"  (Mark  2:26; 
cf.  Luke  6:4)  or  to  Herod  Antipas  as  "king"  (Mark  6:14;  cf.  Luke 

9:7). 

The  consequences  of  this  historical  interest  for  the  present  study 
must  not  be  overlooked.  It  means  that  we  shall  find  no  topical  arrange- 
ment, but  rather  an  endeavor  to  fix  events  in  their  proper  sequence, 
and  that  in  the  use  of  his  sources  the  evangelist  will  employ  them  in 
their  original  order  unless  he  has  a  definite  reason  for  believing  that  order 
to  be  incorrect.  Where  two  sources  have  divergent  accounts  of  the 
same  event  he  is  perhaps  more  likely  to  compare  the  two  accounts  and 
select  that  which  seems  the  more  reliable  than  to  attempt  to  preserve 
all  the  edifying  details  of  both  accounts.  These  phenomena  all  appear 
plainly  in  his  actual  literary  procedure. 

75]  5 


HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 


It  is  unnecessary  to  present  arguments  for  the  use  of  a  document 
closely  resembling  our  present  Gospel  of  Mark  as  a  common  source  of 
much  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  The  facts  that  in  the  Triple  Tradition 
Matthew  quite  largely  and  Luke  almost  wholly  agree  with  Mark  in 
the  order  of  the  incidents  related,  and  that  in  language,  although  each 
agrees  with  Mark  in  about  half  of  its  words,  their  common  agreements 
against  Mark  are  very  few  and  usually  mere  coincidences — these  make 
it  impossible  to  avoid  the  generally  accepted  conclusion  that  in  our 
Second  Gospel  we  possess  a  close  approximation  to  the  source  docu- 
ment which  furnished  both  Matthew  and  Luke  with  the  general  outline 
of  their  narrations  and  with  much  of  the  linguistic  form.1  It  is  proper, 
however,  to  review  briefly  the  manner  in  which  the  third  evangelist 
employs  this  source. 

First,  it  is  at  once  apparent  that  he  endeavored  to  preserve  as  far 
as  possible  its  original  order.  Of  the  thirty-eight  sections2  which,  up 
to  Luke  19:1,  seem  to  have  been  drawn  from  the  Markan  source,  only 
three  (Luke  3:10-20;  6:12-16;  8:19-21)  occupy  a  position  different 
from  that  of  the  parallel  section  in  Mark,  and  two  of  these  are  the  two 
sections  which  introduce  and  conclude  the  ''Lesser  Interpolation"  of 
materials  from  another  source. 

Secondly,  the  Markan  materials  are  inserted  in  blocks,  usually  of 
considerable  extent.  After  a  few  introductory  materials,  brought  in 
of  necessity,  just  where  the  narrative  demands  (Luke  3:3-4,  16,  19-22; 
4:1-2),  Luke  inserts  the  rest  of  his  Markan  materials,  up  to  the  Passion- 
week,  in  four  large  blocks  (Luke  4:31-44;  5:12 — 6:19;  8:4 — 9:50; 
18:15-43).  A  few  parallels  to  Markan  sections  do  appear  elsewhere; 
but  it  would  seem,  from  considerations  later  to  be  urged,  that  these  are 
in  reality  "doublets,"  and  were  drawn  by  Luke  from  another  source. 
Yet  there  are  a  few  exceptions  to  this  rule,  cases  where  a  conflation  of 
two  narratives  seems  to  have  taken  place.  The  first  of  these  is  the  use 
of  a  verse  of  Markan  materials,  Luke  3:16,  in  the  midst  of  the  non- 
Markan  materials  of  the  preaching  of  the  Baptist,  in  a  form  slightly 
influenced  by  the  non-Markan  construction  which  appears  more  clearly 

1  Interesting  corroborative  evidence,  external  to  the  documents,  might  be  drawn 
from  Harnack's  observation  (Luke  the  Physician,  pp.  17  ff.;  Lukas  der  Arzt,  pp.  13  f.) 
that  Luke  was  personally  acquainted  with  John  Mark;  cf.  Col.  4:10,  14;  Philem. 
24;  II  Tim.  4:11. 

.  2-In  E.  D.  Burton  and  E.  J.  Goodspeed,  Harmony  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  pp.  ix- 
xiv. 

76 


in  the  Matthew  parallel  (3:11).  The  only  other  instances  of  any  impor- 
tance are  the  addition  of  one  verse  of  non-Markan  materials  (Luke  5 139), 
and  the  possible  substitution  of  another  (Luke  5 : 36)  in  the  parables  of 
the  Garment  and  of  the  Wine-skins,  and  the  addition  of  a  bit  of  detail 
(Luke  9:31-32)  in  the  story  of  the  transfiguration. 

Thirdly,  Luke  gives  full  historical  value  to  the  order  of  the  Markan 
narrative,  except  where  he  replaces  it  by  a  different  version  of  the  same 
event,  as  in  the  rejection  at  Nazareth  (Luke  4: 16-30;  cf.  Mark  6: 1-6), 
the  call  of  the  first  disciples  (Luke  5:1-11;  cf.  Mark  1:16-20),  or  the 
charge  of  exorcism  by  Beelzebub  (Luke  11:14-23;  cf.  Mark  3:22-30); 
and  in  following  the  Markan  source  he  is  careful  to  preserve  unchanged 
the  chronological  connection  or  want  of  connection  between  various 
incidents.1 

Fourthly,  in  his  use  of  the  language  of  his  source,  the  third  evangelist 
is  apparently  quite  free.  Hawkins'  figures2  show  that  in  the  Triple 
Tradition  as  far  as  Luke  23: 13,  53  per  cent  of  the  words  in  Luke,  2,829 
words  out  of  a  total  of  5,320,  are  paralleled  in  Mark.  Thus  there  is 
considerable  freedom  of  treatment  in  the  details  of  the  narrative.  This 
takes  the  form  mainly  of  improvement  of  the  rather  rough  language  of 
Mark,  smoothing  out  the  details  of  the  narrative,  or  slight  condensation, 
or  abridgment;  only  occasionally  is  there  expansion,  and  there  are  very 
few  cases  where  the  changes  involve  the  addition  of  any  really  new  detail 
to  the  picture. 

1  Of  the  thirty-eight  Mark-parallel  sections,  in  only  three  is  there  any  change  of 
the  Markan  data,  namely  in  Luke  9: 28,  37,  43.  Cf.  also  V.  H.  Stanton,  The  Gospels 
as  Historical  Documents,  II,  228:  "Now  it  should  be  observed  that  in  parallels  with 
St.  Mark,  our  third  evangelist  is  careful  not  to  create  connexions  in  time  which  he 
did  not  find  in  his  source.  He  does  not  take  the  juxtaposition  of  narratives  to  imply 
immediate  sequence  of  tune  as  our  first  evangelist  often  does.  On  the  contrary,  three 
times  at  least  he  has  employed  phrases  which  seem  expressly  designed  to  shew  that 
this  is  not  to  be  inferred.  (Cf.  Mark  2:1  with  Luke  5: 17;  Mark  3:1  with  Luke  6:6; 
Mark  3:13  with  Luke  6:12;  Mark  2:13  and  Luke  5:27  might  I  think  be  added  to 
these,  but  some  may  be  of  the  opinion  that  pera  TO.VTO.  here  hi  Luke  is  not  less  ambigu- 
ous than  Mark's  rdX^.)  Further,  where  he  has  introduced  sections  into  the  Markan 
context  or  changed  the  order,  he  has  generally  (except  at  4:31)  been  careful  to  refrain 
from  suggesting  a  close  temporal  connexion.  Plainly  none  is  indicated  at  5:  i  and  12. 
Again  the  insertions  at  4: 16  and  5:1  follow  references  to  periods  of  activity,  not  to 
particular  events;  while  the  crossing  of  the  Lake  at  Luke  8: 22  ff.,  which  does  not  as  in 
St.  Mark  immediately  follow  the  Teaching  by  Parables,  is  said  to  have  happened  'on 
one  of  those  days.'  From  Luke's  procedure  hi  regard  to  his  Markan  document  hi  this 
respect  we  may  surely  learn  how  he  would  be  likely  to  treat  another  document." 

3  Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem,  pp.  77-78. 

77 


8  HISTORICAL,  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

However,  this  treatment  of  the  language  is  not  uniform  within  the 
section.  The  examination  of  a  few  sample  sections,  chosen  practically 
at  random  (Luke  4:31-44;  5:17-26;  8:40-56;  9:11-17;  9:28-36; 
9:37-43),  will  show  that  in  nearly  every  case  the  introductory,  and  often 
the  concluding,  sentence  is  handled  with  the  greatest  degree  of  freedom, 
the  body  of  the  narrative  approaches  the  average  for  the  whole  of  the 
Triple  Tradition,  and  the  words  of  Jesus  are  quoted  the  most  exactly. 
Thus,  of  the  146  words  of  introduction  in  the  sections  named  above, 
36,  or  25  per  cent,  have  parallels  in  Mark;  of  the  874  words  in  the  body 
of  the  narratives,  395,  or  45  per  cent,  have  Markan  parallels;  of  the  120 
words  of  discourse,  90,  or  75  per  cent;  and  of  the  119  words  of  conclusion, 
42,  or  35  per  cent,  are  paralleled  in  Mark.1 

Next  in  importance  to  the  identity  of  words  in  the  sentence  must 
stand  agreement  in  the  order  of  the  words,  even  where  synonymous 
words  or  phrases  appear  in  the  parallel  accounts.  Here  a  similar  rule 
applies,  though  the  phenomenon  is  more  difficult  to  measure.  In  the 
passages  selected  above,  in  the  discourse  the  order  of  words  is  the  same 
in  both  Mark  and  Luke,  in  the  body  of  the  narratives  it  is  often  but  not 
always  the  same,  and  in  the  introductions  and  conclusions  it  may 
frequently  be  quite  different. 

III.   THE   OTHER  PRINCIPAL  SOURCES   OF  THE   THIRD   GOSPEL 

In  the  description  of  the  other  principal  source  or  sources  of  the 
Third  Gospel  there  is  no  such  agreement  among  critics  as  in  the  case  of 
the  general  opinion  that  a  document  very  similar  to  our  Second  Gospel 
was  the  first  main  source.  Yet  here  too  it  is  granted  by  nearly  all 
scholars  that  the  nature  of  this  source  must  be  determined  primarily 
from  the  non-Markan  materials  in  which  the  First  and  Third  Gospels 
show  agreement.  These  are  generally  supposed  to  form  the  nucleus, 
if  not  the  whole,  of  the  source  commonly  designated  as  "Q,"  which  is 
thus  discriminated  by  the  purely  mechanical  method  of  collecting  the 
materials  for  which  Matthew  and  Luke  must  have  had  a  common  source 
other  than  the  Markan  document. 

With  the  method  of  this  discrimination  there  can  be  no  quarrel; 
the  mechanical  process  is  such  as  to  free  the  critic  largely  from  predis- 
positions and  the  danger  of  mis  judgment,  and  it  must  always  be  the 
first  employed  wherever  possible.  While  the  method  is  correct,  however, 

1  Cf.  B.  F.  Westcott,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels  (7th  ed.,  i 
pp.  198  f.;  and  Stanton,  op.  cit.,  II,  278  ff. 

78 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  9 

it  may  be  that  its  application  has  not  been  sufficiently  rigorous.  Thus 
it  is  a  fact  familiar  to  all  that  this  material  is  embodied  in  Luke's  Gospel 
mainly  in  two  blocks  of  material  (Luke  6: 20 — 8:3;  9:51 — 18: 14),  while 
in  Matthew's  it  is  inserted  ad  libitum  into  the  general  framework  of  his 
argument  in  small  fragments.  Does  not  this  fact  suggest  that,  until 
it  can  be  proved  that  the  two  Lukan  blocks  are  homogeneous  and  parts 
of  the  same  whole,  it  is  necessary  further  to  analyze  the  common  materials 
into  two  groups:  those  which  Matthew  shares  with  the  earlier  portions 
of  Luke,  and  those  common  to  Matthew  and  to  Luke's  Great  Interpo- 
lation ?  It  might  be  that  the  two  sections  of  these  common  materials, 
thus  discriminated  on  grounds  of  purely  mechanical  nature,  would  later 
appear  to  possess  such  internal  unity  that  they  must  be  again  reunited; 
but  hi  point  of  fact  the  analysis  brings  to  light  still  further  points  of 
difference. 

First,  the  materials  common  to  Luke's  " Galilean  ministry"  and  to 
Matthew  appear  in  both  Gospels,  section  for  section,  in  the  same  order.1 

These  sections  are : 

The  Preaching  of  John  (Luke  3:7-9,  17;  Matt.  3'-7-io>  12). 

The  Temptation  (Luke  4:3-13;  Matt.  4:3-11). 

The  Beatitudes  (Luke  6:20-23;  Matt.  5:2-12). 

On  the  Law  of  Love  (Luke  6:27-36;  Matt.  5:39-48). 

On  Judging  (Luke  6:37-42;  Matt.  7:1-5). 

On  Doing  Righteousness  (Luke  6:43-49;  Matt.  7:16-27). 

The  Healing  of  the  Centurion's  Servant  (Luke  7 :  i-io;  Matt.  8: 5-13). 

Discourse  on  John  the  Baptist  (Luke  7 : 18-35;  Matt,  n :  2-19). 

In  these  eight  sections,  comprising  in  Luke  71  verses  at  the  least, 
there  are  but  4  verses  (Luke  6: 31  =  Matt.  7:12;  Luke  6: 39= Matt. 
15:14;  Luke  6:4o=Matt.  10:24;  and  Luke  6:45  =  Matt.  12:35)  which 
have  parallels  in  Matthew  outside  the  limits  of  the  corresponding 
section,  and  to  the  first  of  these  there  is  a  parallel  within  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount.  These  are  all  words  of  Jesus,  and  similar  transposition 
of  Markan  "Logia"  in  Matthew  may  be  instanced;2  these  exceptions, 
therefore,  are  not  sufficient  to  offset  the  fact  that  in  the  use  of  this 
source,  or  this  section  of  the  Q  source,  Luke  and  Matthew  practically 
agree  in  order  throughout. 

1  Cf.  Harnack,  The  Sayings  of  Jesus,  pp.  172  f.;  Spriiche  undReden  Jesu,  pp.  121  f. 

2Cf.  Mark  4: 21=  Matt.  5:15;  Mark  9: 43-48= Matt.  5:29-30,  18:8-9;  Mark 
9:4i=Matt.  10:42;  Mark  io:is=Matt.  18:3;  Mark  n:25=Matt.  6:14. 

79 


10  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

However,  no  such  agreement  in  order  can  be  traced  through  the 
remaining  portion  of  the  common  materials;1  they  are  scattered  in  widely 
divergent  order  through  Luke's  Great  Interpolation  and  through  Matthew 
alike.  The  question  must  therefore  be  raised  whether  it  is  not  more 
likely  that  these  were  two  sources  than  that  Matthew  adopted  a  different 
method  of  using  his  source  at  the  very  point  where  Luke  broke  it  in  two. 

Secondly,  there  are  not  wanting  diversities  in  the  literary  character- 
istics of  the  two  groups  of  material.  It  has  been  noted  by  Burton3 
that  the  former  group  has  "a  marked  uniformity  in  general  literary 
character.  The  narratives  are  all  vividly  told,  surpassing  in  this  respect 
even  the  vivid  narratives  of  Mark,  and  in  literary  style  reaching  the 
high-water  mark  of  this  Gospel."  But  the  character  of  the  second 
group  is  quite  different.  Where  the  former  has  a  large  degree  of  interest 
in  narrative,  the  latter  contains  little  but  discourse  material  ;3  the  vivid- 
ness and  definiteness  of  the  former  group  are  in  marked  contrast  to  the 
indefiniteness  of  the  latter;4  where  the  former  quotes  the  Old  Testa- 
ment explicitly  (six  times),  the  latter  has  reflections  of  Old  Testament 
language  (twelve  such,  against  one  in  the  " Galilean"  portion)  and 
references  to  Old  Testament  characters  and  cities.  Certain  linguistic 
differences  also  appear.  The  former  group  describes  Jesus  always  as 
Ttos  TOV  Geou,  the  latter  generally  as  Ttos  TOV  av6puirov;  and  the  phrases 
BaertXeta  TOV  GcoO  and  avrr)  17  yevea  are  characteristic  chiefly  of  the  latter 
group. 

Thirdly,  there  is  a  similar  diversity  in  the  thought-content  and  point 
of  view.  For  the  former  group,  the  "Galilean"  portion  in  Luke,  the 

1  Cf.  Harnack  on  the  order  of  Q,  Sayings  of  Jesus,  pp.  178-79  (Spruche  und 
Reden  Jesu,  pp.  125-26).  Of  the  remaining  sections  of  Q,  Harnack  traces  similarity  of 
order  in  only  twenty-one  sections  in  all  (p.  178),  and  this  in  two  overlapping  series; 
while  of  the  other  twenty-seven  sections  he  observes  that  they  "do  not  admit  of  being 
arranged  in  a  definite  order"  (p.  179).  On  the  order  of  the  materials  of  Matthew's 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  which  are  paralleled  in  Luke's  Great  Interpolation,  he  remarks 
(p.  176),  "This  is  hopeless;  for  it  is  simply  impossible  to  trace  any  sign  of  correspond- 
ence in  order  of  the  parallel  passages. " 

3  Principles  of  Literary  Criticism  and  the  Synoptic  Problem  (Chicago,  1904),  p.  43. 

3  The  first  contains  three  narratives,  and  three  narratives  containing  dialogue,  and 
one  (perhaps  three)  paragraphs  with  narrative  introduction;  but  the  second  contains 
no  true  narratives,  but  one  narrative  containing  dialogue,  and  sixteen  paragraphs  with 
narrative  introduction  and  twenty-one  sections  of  straight  discourse. 

4  The  former  gives  personal  Jiames,  geographical  and  chronological  references, 
and  details  of  the  situation,  and  exaggerates  numbers  and  areas  to  gain  vividness, 
while  the  latter  omits  these  even  where  they  might  be  expected  to  appear. 

80 


THE    SOURCES   OF   LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  11 

emphasis  in  the  Christian  life  is  placed  upon  the  ethical  and  moral 
phase,  and  upon  the  principle  of  love.  Therefore  Jesus  is  here 
depicted  as  the  Son  of  God  who  has  power  to  heal  and  to  forgive. 
But  the  attitude  of  the  latter  group — the  materials  from  Luke's  Great 
Interpolation — is  quite  different;  here  the  emphasis  is  not  upon 
righteousness  but  upon  prayer,  watchfulness,  trust,  and  faith;  and 
Jesus  is  presented  as  the  Son  of  Man,  revealing  the  Father  to  men, 
who  are,  like  himself,  sons  of  God.  On  the  practical  side  it  recom- 
mends chiefly  abnegation  and  opposes  covetousness  and  the  possession 
of  property.  Further,  the  latter  group  is  strongly  eschatological,  with 
frequent  reference  to  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  is  likewise  strongly 
anti-Pharisaic,  holding  even  that  the  Old  Testament  is  not  the  final 
revelation  of  God;  but  none  of  this  appears  in  the  former  group,  which 
hardly  mentions  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  omits  all  reference  to  the 
Pharisees. 

For  these  reasons  it  seems  necessary  to  accept  the  theory  propounded 
by  Professor  E.  D.  Burton/  that  the  common  sources  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  were,  besides  Mark,  not  one  but  two — that  embodied  hi  the  Lukan 
account  of  Jesus'  "  Galilean  ministry,"  and  that  embodied  in  his 
"Perean"  section.  This  solution  of  the  synoptic  problem,  therefore, 
forms  the  basis  of  the  present  discussion.2 

It  remains  to  discuss  the  sources  of  the  materials  of  Luke's  Gospel 
which  are  peculiar  to  himself.  Here  mechanical  means  of  discrimina- 
tion fail,  and  conclusions  must  be  drawn  solely  from  internal  evidence. 
Some,  as  Burkitt,3  hold  that  these  materials  were  perhaps  a  part  of 
the  Q  source,  while  others,  as  Stanton  and  Weizsacker,4  rightly  arguing 
that  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  the  third  evangelist  would  have 
undertaken  an  elaborate  interweaving  of  material,  hold  that  Luke 
had  an  expanded  recension  of  Q  in  which  these  materials  were  already 
imbedded.  Yet  others,  following  Harnack's  and  Wellhausen's  strict 
limitation  of  Q  to  the  common  materials  of  Matthew  and  Luke, 
hold  that  the  third  evangelist  had  yet  another  written  source,  perhaps 

*E.  D.  Burton,  op.  cit.;  also  "Some  Phases  of  the  Synoptic  Problem,"  Journal 
of  Biblical  Literature,  XXXI  (1912),  Part  II,  pp.  95-113. 

3 1  believe,  however,  that  the  results  of  this  study  will  be  equally  available  for  those 
who  continue  to  hold  the  two-document  theory,  inasmuch  as  the  materials  common  to 
Luke's  Passion-narrative  and  to  Matthew  are,  at  most,  but  a  verse  or  two. 

3  Burkitt,  The  Gospel  History  and  Its  Transmission,  pp.  130  ff. 

4  Stanton,  op.  cit.,  n,  227^;  Weizsacker,  Untersuckungen  iiber  die  evangeliscke 
Geschichte  (1864),  pp.  205  f. 

81 


12  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

including  an  account  of  the  Passion.  This  is  the  view  of  B.  Weiss  and 
of  Feine.1 

The  problem,  therefore,  must  be  considered  whether  or  not  the  pecul- 
iar materials  of  Luke's  Gospel,  up  to  the  point  where  the  narrative  of 
Jesus'  closing  days  in  Jerusalem  begins,  were  or  were  not  connected 
with  the  materials  which  he  shared  with  Matthew  when  these  latter 
came  into  his  hand.  There  are  a  number  of  indications  which  go  to  show 
that  the  combination  of  these  groups  of  material  was  not  the  work  of 
the  evangelist. 

First,  we  have  already  seen  (p.  6)  that  Luke's  habit  in  dealing  with 
his  Markan  source  was  to  insert  its  materials  in  blocks  of  considerable 
size  rather  than  to  interweave  it  closely  with  materials  from  his  other 
sources.  But  the  peculiar  materials  of  his  non-Markan  sources  are 
quite  closely  interwoven  with  the  materials  common  also  to  Matthew, 
while  the  blocks  of  the  resulting  interwoven  composition  alternate  with 
considerable  blocks  of  Markan  materials. 

Secondly,  it  is  a  priori  probable,  from  Matthew's  topical  arrangement, 
that  he  should  omit  sections  here  and  there  from  his  sources.  Thus, 
though  he  does  indeed  omit  but  few  sections  of  his  Markan  source, 
another  irregularity  in  his  use  of  Mark,  his  occasional  repetition  of 
passages  (seven  in  all),  which  serves  to  show  his  desire  to  exhaust  the 
source  he  had  chosen  to  furnish  his  outline,  would  argue  for  extensive 
omissions  from  a  source  for  which  he  had  not  the  same  respect,  and  which 
he  did  not  employ  so  largely  in  order,  or  which  had  to  be  conformed  to 
the  Markan  materials.  That  this  was  the  status  of  his  non-Markan 
sources  would  appear  from  the  fact  that  in  building  up  his  discourses  he 
usually  starts  with  an  occasion  and  brief  outline  in  the  Markan  material, 
and  adds  to  this  appropriate  materials  from  the  source  which  he  shared 
with  Luke  and  from  materials  peculiar  to  himself.2  Since  the  two  latter 
groups  of  material  are  selections  that  must  accord  with  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  first,  it  becomes  inherently  probable  that  much  in  their 
sources  must  have  been  omitted. 

Thirdly,  internal  evidence  serves  to  show  that  the  materials  peculiar 
to  Luke's  " Galilean"  section  (chaps.  3-8)  are  homogeneous  with  those 

'Bernhard  Weiss,  Die  Quellen  des  Lukas-evangeliums  (1907),  pp.  195  ff.;  Die 
Quetten  der  synoptischen  Ueberlieferung,  Text.  u.  Untersuch.,  Band  32,  Heft  3  (1908), 
pp.  1695.;  P.  Feine,  Eine  vorkanonische  Ueberlieferung  des  Lukas  (1891),  pp.  10-12. 

3  Cf.  the  discourses  in  chaps.  10, 13,  18,  23,  24-25.  In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
(chaps.  5-7)  the  similar  sermon  in  Luke  (6:20-49)  seems  to  take  the  place  of  the 
Markan  outline. 

82 


THE   SOURCES   OF   LUKE^S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  13 

which,  in  this  portion,  he  shares  with  the  First  Gospel.  The  literary  and 
historical  arguments  used  above  all  go  to  prove  that  the  non-Markan 
materials  of  this  portion  of  the  Third  Gospel  must  have  formed  a  single 
document.1 

As  regards  the  materials  of  the  Great  Interpolation  the  case  is  not 
so  clear.  Here  the  internal  evidence  seems  rather  to  show  that  the  pecul- 
iar materials  and  the  Matthew-paralleled  materials  did  not  originally 
form  a  unified  document  ;2  but  the  fact,  just  brought  out,  that  Luke  used 
his  second  source,  as  he  used  his  Markan  document,  in  blocks — this  would 
indicate  that  the  interweaving  of  these  materials  was  not  the  work  of 
the  evangelist,  and  that  the  Great  Interpolation  also  lay  before  him 
in  the  form  of  a  single,  though  composite,  document. 

We  shall  therefore  assume  that  the  non-Markan  sources  of  the  Lukan 
narrative  of  Jesus'  ministry  up  to  the  time  of  his  approach  to  Jerusalem 
are,  besides  the  narratives  of  the  infancy,  two:  one  which  includes  the 
non-Markan  materials  of  the  "  Galilean  ministry, "  namely  the  preaching 
of  John,  the  temptation,  the  rejection  at  Nazareth,  the  call  of  four 
disciples,  and  the  Lesser  Interpolation  (Luke  3:7-15,  17-18;  4:2-30; 
5:1-11;  6:20 — 8:3);  and  a  second,  which  includes  the  Great  Interpola- 
tion, or  "Perean  ministry"  (Luke  9:51 — 18:14,  perhaps  also  19:1-27). 
These  sources  will  be  designated,  after  Burton,  from  their  geographical 
setting,  as  "G"  and  "P,"  respectively.  We  now  turn  to  review  the 
manner  in  which  Luke  has  made  use  of  these  sources. 

iv.  LUKE'S  USE  OF  HIS  NON-MARKAN  SOURCES 

First,  it  has  been  noted  that,  in  so  far  as  we  can  judge  from  the  G 
materials  inserted  in  Matthew,  Luke  has  used  that  document  as  he  had 
used  his  Markan  source  in  its  original  order.  This  conclusion  is  further 
corroborated  by  his  insertion  of  accounts  parallel  to,  but  not  derived 
from,  the  Markan  source  at  points  which  do  not  correspond  to  their 

1  See  above,  pp.  10  £.,  and  cf.  Burton,  Princ.  Lit.  Crit.,  pp.  43  f.  These  materials 
show  the  same  narrative  interest  and  the  same  vividness  and  definiteness  as  the 
Matthew-parallel  materials,  and,  like  them,  place  the  emphasis  in  Christian  life  upon 
love  and  righteousness,  and  avoid  eschatology  and  anti-Pharisaic  utterances.  Stanton 
(op.  cit.,  II,  296-99)  finds  in  three  of  these  narratives  (Luke  5:1-11;  7:36-50;  8: 1-3) 
indications  of  Lukan  authorship  in  an  unusual  number  of  "expressions  characteristic 
of  the  third  evangelist";  but  the  evidence  is  not  overwhelming  here. 

3  Cf.  D.  R.  Wickes,  Sources  of  Luke's  Perean  Section  (Chicago,  1912).  Wickes 
contends,  on  the  evidence  of  peculiarities  of  style  and  thought,  that  there  are  two 
distinct  groups  of  material,  one  embracing  the  Matthew-parallel  materials  and  a  few 
materials  peculiar  to  Luke,  the  other  the  great  mass  of  the  peculiarly  Lukan  material. 

83 


14  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

position  in  the  Markan  narrative.  Thus,  for  the  Markan  accounts 
of  the  rejection  at  Nazareth,  the  call  of  the  first  disciples,  and  the 
anointing  of  Jesus,  he  substitutes  parallel  but  fuller  accounts;  and 
these  are  in  each  case  differently  placed.  It  is  difficult  to  see  why  this 
should  have  been  the  case,  unless  in  so  placing  them  the  evangelist 
followed  the  order  in  which  they  already  stood  in  the  source  from 
which  he  drew  them.  Of  the  form  in  which  P  lay  before  the 
evangelist  we  cannot  be  sufficiently  sure  to  draw  any  deductions  which 
might  be  used  as  evidence  in  our  study;  but  probably  the  case  is  the 
same  here  also. 

Secondly,  it  appears  that  Luke's  tendency  was  to  use  materials  from 
his  sources  in  blocks  of  considerable  size.  This  is  the  manner  in  which 
he  has  used  the  G  source,  which  appears  first  in  the  narrative  of  the 
Preaching  of  the  Baptist  somewhat  conflated  with  Markan  materials, 
but  then  in  a  block  which  includes  the  temptation  and  the  rejection  at 
Nazareth,  followed  by  the  insertion  of  the  single  narrative  of  the  Call  of 
the  First  Disciples,  and  finally  by  the  block  (6:20 — 8:3)  known  as  the 
" Lesser  Interpolation."  The  P  materials  are  inserted  in  one  large 
block  of  eight  and  one-half  chapters  (351  verses),  with  the  possible 
addition  of  a  second  smaller  block  at  the  beginning  of  the  Jerusalem 
ministry  (Luke  19:1-27). 

Thirdly,  where  Luke  had  duplicate  accounts  before  him,  it  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  his  habit  to  conflate  them  as  Matthew  regularly  did ; 
but  he  rather  made  choice  between  them  and  followed  closely  the  one 
selected.  Thus,  in  the  accounts  of  the  rejection  at  Nazareth  (4: 16-30), 
the  call  of  the  first  disciples  (5:1-11),  and  the  anointing  of  Jesus  (7:36- 
50),  there  is  no  reason  for  believing  that  any  of  the  details  are  drawn  from 
the  corresponding  Markan  accounts.  The  reverse  is  true,  however, 
in  the  description  of  the  Baptist's  Testimony  (3:16),  where,  save  for  the 
improvement  in  the  order  of  the  phrases,  Luke  agrees  closely  with  Mark, 
while  Matthew  apparently  conflates  details  from  the  Markan  source 
with  the  account  of  G.  In  P  this  avoidance  of  duplicates  is  not  quite 
so  clear,  since  that  document  seems  to  have  been  inserted  just  as  it 
stood.  Indeed,  Luke  does  occasionally  include  in  his  Great  Interpola- 
tion accounts  of  events  that  he  has  already  given  in  the  Markan  version 
(cf.  Luke  5:12-16  with  17:11-14;  6:6-11  with  14:2-6;  and  perhaps 
9:1-6  with  10:1-12);  but  he  also  omits  Markan  accounts  of  events 
obviously  the  same  as  those  which  he  intends  to  give  in  the  P  version, 
the  charge  of  evil  exorcism  (i  i :  14-23 ;  cf .  Mark  3 : 22-30)  and  the  demand 
for  a  sign  (11:29;  cf.  Mark.  8:11-13). 

84 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  15 

Fourthly,  in  turning  from  one  source  to  another  the  evangelist  seems 
to  seek  for  a  nexus  through  some  common  incident  or  geographical 
hint.  Thus  the  Markan  reference  to  the  temptation  (cf.  Luke  4:1-2) 
gives  him  an  opportunity  to  turn  to  the  account  in  his  G  document, 
which  he  follows  until  he  can  connect  the  reference  to  Jesus'  return  to 
Capernaum  (4:31)  with  the  similar  reference  in  Mark  (Mark  1:21). 
The  list  of  Jesus'  disciples  and  the  description  of  the  general  character 
of  his  ministry  the  evangelist  transposes  and  thus  brings  Jesus'  teaching 
(drawn  from  a  G  account)  into  a  position  where  it  is  balanced  against 
his  working.  The  nexus  of  P  is  not  so  definite,  for  P  itself  is  largely 
wanting  in  just  these  hints.  It  is  difficult  to  say,  therefore,  just  what 
reasons  prevailed  upon  the  evangelist  to  locate  it  where  he  did;  perhaps 
this  seemed  to  him  the  latest  point  at  which  he  could  reasonably  interrupt 
the  narrative  of  Jesus'  ministry,  or  more  probably  the  reference  to  a 
journey  (Luke  9:51;  cf.  Mark  10:  i)  was  sufficient  nexus. 

Fifthly,  as  far  as  it  can  be  determined,  Luke  shows  an  even  greater 
fidelity  to  the  language  of  G  than  to  that  of  Mark.  That  is  to  say,  his 
agreements  with  Matthew  are  more  numerous  in  G  materials  than  hi  the 
Markan ;  thus  in  the  Markan  materials  common  to  Luke  and  Matthew, 
Luke  has  3,546  words,  of  which  there  appear  in  Matthew,  hi  whole  or 
in  part,  1,356,  or  38.  24  per  cent;  while  of  the  G  materials  common  to 
both  Luke  has,  in  his  Lesser  Interpolation  (Luke  6 : 20 — 8 13),!  ,028  words, 
of  which  516,  or  50.  2  per  cent,  are  common  also  to  Matthew.  This  is 
about  equal  to  the  agreement  of  Luke  and  Matthew  in  the  only  con- 
siderable discourse  section  of  Mark  (Luke  8  -.4-1 5  =  Matt.  13:1-23), 
where,  of  Luke's  231  words,  127  are  paralleled  in  Matthew,  or  54.9 
per  cent;  but  the  Lesser  Interpolation  includes  also  the  narrative  of 
the  Healing  of  the  Centurion's  Servant.  The  agreements  of  Matthew 
and  Luke  in  the  P  materials  common  to  both  are  approximately  the  same : 
of  3,234  words  in  Luke,  1,715  are  shared  by  Matthew,  or  53. 03  per  cent; 
but  these  are  chiefly  discourse  materials.  It  would  thus  appear  that 
Luke  followed  the  language  of  his  "Perean,"  and  particularly  of  his 
"Galilean,"  sources  rather  more  closely  than  he  did  that  of  his  Markan 
document. 

V.   EDITORIAL   ADDITIONS   BY   THE   EVANGELIST 

A  further  point  in  the  third  evangelist's  literary  method,  the  construc- 
tion of  his  editorial  summaries,  requires  especial  consideration,  and  in 
particular  the  question  whether  or  not  these  are  produced,  as  some  of  the 
similar  descriptions  in  the  First  Gospel  appear  to  have  been,  by  the 

85 


16  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC  STUDIES 

compilation  of  data  from  scattered  portions  of  the  Markan  source  (cf . 
with  Matt.  4:23-25;  Mark  1:39,  28,  32,  340;  3:76-8).  Of  the  nine 
passages  connected  with  Markan  materials  where  the  editorial  hand  of 
the  evangelist  is  most  clearly  manifest  (Luke  3 : 19-20;  4: 14-15;  4:41 ; 
5:15-16;  5:17;  6:11;  6:17-19:  8:1-3;  18:34),  four  (Luke  3:19-20; 
5:15-16;  6:11;  6:17-19),  including  the  longest  of  them  all,  contain  no 
materials  which  appear  to  have  been  drawn  from  any  Markan  passage 
except  the  immediate  parallel.  These  may  be  dismissed  at  once. 
Luke  5:17  is  not  similar  to  the  corresponding  Markan  passage  (Mark 
2:1-2);  but  while  a  somewhat  similar  passage  finally  occurs  in  Mark 
7:1  (omitted  by  Luke),  the  specification  of  a  wide  range  of  territory 
(cf . Luke  3 : 1-2 53:3;  Acts  2 : 9-1 1;  9:31;  11:19,  etc.)  and  the  connection 
otdvvaius  and  icurfcu.  (cf.  Luke  6 : 19)  are  specifically  Lukan  characteristics, 
so  that  a  Markan  source  is  hardly  needed  for  this  passage.  Luke 
18:34  is  somewhat  similar  to  Mark  9:32;  but  the  expansion  of  this 
verse  by  Luke  in  the  parallel  position  is  sufficient  to  show  that  it  was  one 
of  the  dominating  ideas  in  his  own  explanation  of  the  gospel  story. 
Luke  8:1-3,  while  remotely  paralleled  in  Mark  (6:66;  15:40-41; 
16:1),  contains  further  details  and  is  not  satisfied  by  these  parallels 
(note  also  the  differences  in  the  list  of  the  women)  and  seems  rather  to 
require  another  source,  probably  the  G  document,  which  adjoins  or 
includes  it.  Thus  far,  then,  it  has  not  appeared  that  Luke's  editorial 
comments  are  produced  by  a  process  of  conflation;  and  this  is  just  the 
conclusion  that  might  be  expected  regarding  an  author  who  in  other 
respects  conflates  so  little. 

In  the  remaining  instances,  however,  the  case  appears  different  at 
first  glance.  Luke  4: 14-15  is  largely  paralleled  in  three  verses  of  Mark: 
the  parallel  verse  (Mark  i :  14)  and  Mark  i :  28  and  i :  39.  But  these  two 
latter  parallels  are  of  the  most  conventional  materials,  and  the  former 
of  them  (Luke  4:146)  is  quite  as  well  suggested  by  an  earlier  phrase 
in  Luke:  Tra<rav  rrjv  Trepixupov  in  Luke  3:3.  Since  this  section,  standing 
between  two  G  narratives  (Luke  4:3-13, 16-30),  is  likely  on  that  account 
to  have  come  from  G,  and  since  it  contains  also  elements  not  satisfied 
by  Mark  (kv  rrj  dwa^et,  TOV  n^eu/zaros,  do£af6/zej>os  VTTO  TravTw),  it  seems 
rather  far-fetched  to  attempt  to  describe  it  as  a  compilation  of  these 
merely  incidental  details  from  the  Markan  source.  Luke  4:41  is  the 
most  apparent  case  of  compilation;  here,  in  the  midst  of  a  Markan 
account,  there  are  suddenly  inserted  the  phrase  \kyovra  on.  crv  el  6  Ttos 
TOV  deov  and  the  verb  eTrtrtM^,  which  have  a  verbal  parallel  in  Mark 
3:11-12  two  chapters  later.  Yet  the  phrase,  in  its  conventional  ecclesi- 

86 


THE   SOURCES   OF   LUKE^S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  17 

astical  language,  may  be  but  an  accidental  assimilation  to  Markan 
language  of  the  more  original  cry  in  the  preceding  narrative  of  Luke 
(cf .  Luke  4 : 34,  really  a  part  of  the  section  to  which  this  verse  forms  a 
conclusion),  and  the  coincidence  of  €7rm/z£j>  may  easily  be  accidental;  or 
we  may  here  be  confronted  with  an  instance  of  harmonistic  corruption 
of  the  text. 

There  is,  therefore,  no  undoubted  instance  of  conflation  of  details 
garnered  from  different  points  in  the  sources  to  build  up  an  editorial 
summary,  or  transitional  sentence,  or  a  complete  narrative;  and  inasmuch 
as  this  is  not  elsewhere  the  evangelist's  literary  method,  it  seems  rather 
that  any  real  cases  of  editorial  compilation  must  be  due  to  a  merely 
unconscious  reminiscence  of  details  learned  elsewhere  in  the  source. 
That  such  laborious  and  detailed  compilation  as  the  converse  proposi- 
tion would  require  could  never  have  been  an  evangelist's  method  is 
patent  in  two  facts.  First,  an  evangelist  who  exhibits  such  freedom  in 
the  revision  of  the  language  and  form  of  his  sources  cannot  have  been 
at  great  pains  to  preserve  all  the  minutiae  of  their  content;  and  second, 
the  presence  of  a  single  doublet,  especially  of  such  doublets  as  those  which 
in  Matthew  (cf.  Matt.  5:29-30  and  18:8-9;  9:32~34  ^d  12:22-24) 
arise  simply  from  the  careless  repetition  of  a  passage  out  a  of  single  source, 
is  proof  positive  that  no  such  particularistic  treatment  of  the  sources 
obtained  in  the  literary  method  of  the  evangelist.  (Luke  avoided  dou- 
blets simply  by  using  his  sources  in  their  own  order  and  eliminating  any 
duplications  which  struck  him.) 

On  the  other  hand  there  is  an  occasional  editorial  transposition  of 
details  from  one  point  to  another  within  a  single  narrative.  Sometimes 
this  takes  the  form  of  a  better  setting  of  the  scene,  as  when  the  presence 
of  the  scribes  (Luke  5:17;  cf.  5 : 21  and  Mark  2 : 6)  or  the  fact  that  Jesus 
had  fallen  asleep  (Luke  8:23,  cf.  Mark  4:38)  is  brought  forward  to  a 
point  where  it  does  not  so  delay  the  climax  of  the  story.  In  particular, 
narrative  details  which  in  Mark  are  appended  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
narrative,  obvious  afterthoughts,  are  without  exception  transferred  to 
better  positions  in  the  body  of  the  narrative  (cf.  Luke  3:19-20  with 
Mark  6:17-18;  Luke  8:420,  556  with  Mark  5:426,  436;  Luke  9:146 
with  Mark  6 : 44).  This  particular  phase  of  Luke's  general  improvement 
of  the  diction  and  form  of  the  Markan  narration  is  of  especial  importance. 

VI.    DOUBLETS 

While  the  production  of  so-called  "doublets"  cannot  have  been  any 
intentional  part  of  the  literary  method  of  the  third  evangelist,  yet  these 

87 


18  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

constitute  a  literary  phenomenon  which  must  be  recognized  in  order  to 
gain  a  clear  understanding  of  the  composition  of  the  gospel  record.  A 
true  doublet  may  be  denned  as  a  phenomenon  wherein  the  same 
thought  (generally  a  saying  of  Jesus)  appears  twice  in  a  single  Gospel, 
nearly  always  under  such  circumstances  as  to  raise  the  question  whether 
the  second  instance  was  not  drawn  from  another  source  than  that  of 
the  first.  In  addition  to  the  true  doublets  there  must  be  recognized 
also  what  have  been  called  " veiled  doublets,"  where  the  accounts  of 
an  incident,  while  each  without  a  duplicate  in  its  own  Gospel,  seem  not 
to  have  been  drawn  from  the  same  source  (for  example,  cf .  Luke  5 :  i-i  i 
and  Mark  i :  16-20). 

However,  when  they  are  drawn  from  different  sources  the  agree- 
ments between  the  two  members  will  naturally  be  less  numerous  and 
complete,  in  the  case  of  a  doublet  or  a  veiled  doublet,  than  in  the  case 
of  two  accounts  drawn  from  the  same  documentary  source.  Their 
exact  extent  may  now  be  examined. 

Of  true  doublets  in  Luke,  Hawkins1  lists  ten,  all  of  which  seem  to 
be  due  to  a  duplication  of  similar  materials  in  different  sources.  These 
ten  contain,  in  both  their  members,  555  words  and  258  mutual  agreements 
(129  agreements,  each  counted  twice);  so  that  the  amount  of  mutual 
agreement  may  be  counted  as  46 . 5  per  cent,  considerably  less  than  the 
agreement  of  Luke  with  Mark  in  discourse,  73  . 4  per  cent.  The  members 
of  these  doublets,  drawn  by  Luke  from  non-Markan  sources,  contain 
237  words,  of  which  82,  or  34.6  per  cent,  agree  with  the  Markan  text, 
and  57  more  are  parallel  in  substance,  or  56 .  i  per  cent  in  all.  However, 
there  is  great  diversity  in  the  amount  of  agreement;  it  ranges  as  high  as 
75  per  cent  (Luke  17:33;  cf.  Mark  8:35)  and  as  low  as  15  per  cent 
(Luke  12:9;  cf.  Mark  8:38).  Agreement  in  the  order  of  words  also 
appears  in  four  of  these  ten  instances. 

With  the  veiled  doublets  of  Luke  the  case  is  similar.  In  the  thir- 
teen listed  by  Stan  ton,2  most  of  them  true  doublets  in  Matthew,  of  281 

1  Horae  Syn.3  (1909),  pp.  99-106.    These  are:  Luke  8:16  =  11:33;  8:17  =  12:2; 
8:18  =  19:26;   9:3-5  =  10:4-11;   9:23  =  14:27;   9:24=17:33;    9:26  =  12:9;    11:43  = 
20:46;    12:11-12  =  21:14-15;    14:11  =  18:14;    perhaps  also  Luke  9:46  =  22:24,  but 
this  seems  editorial  in  both  instances.    To  these  should  be  added  Luke  10: 16  =  9:48. 

2  Op.  cit.,  II,  54-60.    These  are:  Luke  11:9,    cf.  Mark  11:24;    Luke    11:15, 
cf.  Mark  3:22;    Luke  11:16,    cf.  Mark8:n;    Luke  11:17-18,    cf.  Mark  3:23-26; 
Luke  11:21-22,   cf.  Mark  3: 27;   Luke  11:29,   cf.  Mark  8: 12;   Luke  12:10,    cf .  Mark 
3:28-29;  Luke  13:18-19,    cf.  Mark.  4:30-32;  Luke  13:30,    cf. Mark  10:31;  Luke 
16:18,  cf.  Mark  10:11;    Luke  17:1-2,  cf.  Mark  9:42;    Luke  17:6,  cf.  Mark  11:23; 
Luke  22:26,  cf.  Mark  9:35. 

88 


19 

words  in  agree  with  Mark  (38  per  cent),  while  50  more  are  paralleled 
in  substance,  or  56 .3  per  cent  in  all,  as  against  the  corresponding  figures 
of  73  .4  per  cent  and  86 . 8  per  cent  for  the  materials  of  Luke  agreeing  with, 
or  essentially  paralleled  in,  Mark  in  the  'discourse  materials  drawn  from 
the  Markan  source.  Agreements  in  order  of  words  appear  in  three  of 
the  fourteen  instances. 

Examination  of  longer  passages  in  Luke  parallel  to,  but  not  derived 
from,  the  Markan  document  shows  even  less  agreement.  Thus,  in  the 
Rejection  at  Nazareth  (Luke  4: 16-30),  of  271  words  but  20  are  common 
to  Mark  also;  in  the  Call  of  the  First  Disciples  (Luke  5:1-11),  of  207 
words  but  16  are  common;  and  even  in  the  Charge  of  Exorcism  by 
Beelzebub  (Luke  n :  15-23),  of  137  words  only  25  (i 8  per  cent)  are  shared 
with  Mark,  but  these  are  32  .5  per  cent  of  the  common  materials  of  the 
section. 

It,  therefore,  appears  that  a  certain  amount  of  agreement  between 
different  sources  is  to  be  expected,  amounting,  in  discourse,  to  perhaps 
half  the  agreement  of  different  versions  of  the  same  source,  both  in  the 
choice  of  words  and  in  the  order  of  their  arrangement,  but  occasionally 
approaching  the  limits  of  the  agreement  of  accounts  derived  from  the 
same  source. 

VII.      THE   PRINCIPLES   OF   LUKE'S   LITERARY   PROCEDURE 

We  may  now  state  briefly  the  results  of  the  preceding  study  of  the 
literary  method  of  the  third  evangelist  in  the  form  of  the  principles  which, 
consciously  or  unconsciously,  guided  him  in  his  task. 

1.  In  making  use  of  his  sources  the  evangelist  endeavored,  as  far  as 
possible,  to  preserve  the  original  order  of  their  materials. 

2.  Where  he  found  duplicate  accounts  of  the  same  incident  he  pre- 
ferred to  choose  one  of  them  and  follow  it  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other, 
rather  than  to  attempt  to  conflate  the  details  of  both  into  a  single  nar- 
rative.   The  version  so  selected  was  inserted  at  the  point  where  it  stood 
in  its  own  source. 

3.  In  the  use  of  his  sources  it  was  his  tendency  to  insert  them  in 
considerable  blocks,  following  one  until  some  common  detail  led  him  to 
take  up  another  at  what  seemed  to  him  the  same  point. 

4.  On  the  other  hand,  so  far  as  indications  of  common  points  availed, 
it  was  his  endeavor  to  fit  his  narratives  together  in  the  historical  order  of 
events.     It  is  conceivable,  therefore,  that,  in  the  use  of  two  rapidly 
moving  narratives  covering  much  the  same  ground,  this  process  would 
approach  compilation  or  conflation. 

89 


20  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

5.  In  copying  his  sources  he  is  free  to  revise  and  improve  their 
language;   but  there  are  limits  to  be  set  to  this  freedom.    In  both  the 
vocabulary  and  the  order  of  words  the  greatest  degree  of  freedom  is  to 
be  found  in  the  introductions  and  conclusions  of  narratives,  while  the 
body  of  the  narratives  is  repeated  more  exactly,  and  the  discourses, 
and  especially  the  apothegms,  of  Jesus  are  repeated  with  the  least 
amount  of  revision. 

6.  His  primary  interest,  however,  is  historical,  and  he  is  at  consider- 
able pains  not  to  misquote  his  sources  on  points  of  sequence  and  chro- 
nology. 

7.  While  generally  endeavoring  not  to  repeat  a  single  incident  which 
came  to  him  in  two  versions,  and  therefore  often  omitting  matter  from 
his  sources,  he  sometimes  preserves  "doublets"  of  the  words  of  Jesus, 
often  closely  similar  in  language,  and  more  frequently  presents  "  veiled 
doublets"  by  preserving  the  non-Markan  version  of  a  story  or  saying 
which  appears  also  in  Mark. 


90 


CHAPTER  II 
LITERARY  PHENOMENA  OF  THE  PASSION-NARRATIVE  IN  LUKE 

It  must  be  at  once  apparent  to  even  the  casual  observer  that  in  the 
account  of  the  closing  week  of  Jesus'  career  the  Third  Gospel  differs 
considerably  more  from  the  Second  than  it  does  in  any  other  portions 
of  his  ministry  where  the  two  works  cover  the  same  ground.  This 
appears  at  once  in  matters  of  fact,  such  as  the  time  and  purpose  of  Jesus' 
examination  before  the  Jewish  authorities,  his  trial  before  Pilate,  the 
account  of  the  Last  Supper,  and  the  question  whether  the  departure  of 
Judas  took  place  before  or  after  the  Supper.  It  becomes  the  more  evi- 
dent to  one  who  studies  the  two  Gospels  closely  side  by  side  and  endeavors 
to  trace  their  parallels — so  numerous  are  the  transpositions,  expansions, 
or  abbreviations  of  the  minor  details.  We  come,  therefore,  to  a  study 
of  the  literary  phenomena  of  these  closing  chapters  of  Luke. 

I.      THE   LIMITS   OF  THE  AGREEMENT  WITH  MARK 

In  the  study  of  the  Mark  parallels  we  may  divide  the  Passion- 
narrative  of  the  Third  Gospel  into  four  sections,  namely:  (i)  Luke 
19:1-27,  to  which  there  are  hi  Mark  no  parallel  materials;  (2) 
Luke  19:28 — 22:13,  where  the  parallelism  to  Mark  is  fairly  close; 
(3)  Luke  22:14 — 24:11,  where  the  narratives  are  parallel,  but  the 
agreements  are  not  so  close;  and  (4)  Luke  24:13-53,  where  the  parallel 
narrative  of  Mark  is  wanting.  In  the  first  and  fourth  of  these,  of 
course,  there  can  be  no  question  of  the  amount  of  agreement  between 
the  two  Gospels,  and  we  come  to  a  consideration  of  the  second  and  third. 

We  have  already  seen  (pp.  7-8)  that  in  parallel  passages  about 
one-half  of  the  words  of  Mark  appear  also  in  Luke,  wholly  or  in  part, 
and  that  this  agreement  is  much  closer  in  the  case  of  words  of  Jesus, 
and  correspondingly  less  in  the  introductions  and  conclusions  of  narra- 
tives. The  phenomena  are  the  same  in  the  former  of  the  sections  before 
us  (Luke  19:28 — 22:13);  °f  I>71^  words  in  Luke  (excluding  verses  not 
paralleled  in  Mark),  904,  or  52 .6  per  cent,  are  found  also  in  Mark,  and 
213  more  are  there  paralleled  in  substance,  or  65  per  cent  in  all.  But  in 
the  discourse  materials  the  proportion  does  not  hold;  in  the  discourse 
materials  common  to  Luke  and  Mark  previous  to  Luke  19:1,  of  1,103 
words,  810,  or  73 . 4  per  cent,  are  wholly  or  in  part  common  to  both,  and 
91]  21 


22 


HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 


152  more  are  paralleled  in  substance,  or  87. 2  per  cent  in  all;  but  in  the 
present  section,  of  88 1  words  of  discourse,  519,  or  58. 9  per  cent  only,  are 
common  to  both  gospels,  and  71  more  paralleled  in  substance,  or  66.9 
per  cent  in  all.  This  smaller  amount  of  agreement  is  largely  due  to 
the  divergence  between  the  Markan  and  the  Lukan  versions  of  the 
Apocalyptic  Discourse,  where  of  403  words  only  180,  or  44.7  per  cent, 
are  common  to  both,  and  26  more  paralleled  in  substance,  or  51 .1  per 
cent  in  all.  The  agreements  of  Luke  with  Mark  in  the  Apocalyptic 
Discourse,  then,  are  but  three-fifths  as  numerous  as  in  his  Markan 
discourse  materials  (including  parables)  up  to  the  beginning  of  the 
Passion-narrative.  Evidently  he  has  either  here  markedly  changed  his 
literary  method,  or  else  he  is  using  also  non-Markan  materials  which  are 
parallel  in  substance  to  the  Markan. 

Examination  of  the  introductions  and  conclusions  of  the  separate 
incidents  of  this  section  (Luke  19 : 28 — 22 : 13) — of  those  opening  sentences 
which  set  the  scene  for  the  incident,  and  the  closing  sentences  which  are 
frequently,  though  not  always,  added  after  the  climax  of  the  incident 
is  past — shows  that  Luke  is  here,  if  anything,  following,  his  Markan 
source  more  closely.  For  while  in  Markan  sections  examined  (pp.  7-8) 
in  the  introductions  24 .6  per  cent,  and  in  the  conclusions  35  .3  per  cent, 
of  the  words  are  shared  by  both  Gospels,  here,  of  154  words  of  intro- 
duction, 79,  or  51  per  cent,  and  of  147  words  of  conclusion,  57,  or  39  per 
cent,  are  common  to  both.  Evidently  in  this  respect,  where  we  should 
most  expect  editorial  freedom,  Luke  follows  his  Markan  source  more 
closely  than  before. 

TABLE  I 


TOTALS 

DISCOURSE 

INTRODUCTIONS 

CONCLUSIONS 

A* 

Bt 

ct 

A 

B 

C 

A 

B 

C 

A 

B 

C 

Luke  4:31,  etc.  .  . 
Luke  3:3  —  18:43 

i,339 

563 

42.0 

'48^5 
34-8 
32.3 

1  20 

1,103 
88  1 

403 

222 

90 
810 

519 

1  80 

113 

75-o 
73-4 
58.9 
44-7 
50.9 

146 

36 

24.6 

119 

42 

35-6 

Luke  19:  28  —  22:13 
Luke  21:1-36.  .  .  . 
Luke  22:14  —  24:11 

1,861 

589 
1,472 

904 
205 
475 

154 

79 

5i-3 

147 

57 

38.8 

183 

54 

29-5 

no 

33 

30.0 

*  A  refers  to  words  in  Luke,     f  B  refers  to  common  words.     J  C  refers  to  percentage. 

Turning  to  the  latter  section,  Luke  22:14 — 24:11,  we  find  far  less 
agreement  than  before;  of  1,472  words  (again  excluding  verses  of  Luke 
not  paralleled  in  Mark),  but  475,  or  32  .3  per  cent,  are  common,  wholly 
or  in  part,  to  the  two  Gospels;  that  is,  the  agreements  are  but  three- 

92 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  23 

fifths  as  numerous  as  in  the  early  part  of  the  gospel  narrative.  In 
discourse  materials  the  proportion  is  113  words  out  of  222,  or  50.9  per 
cent;  in  the  introductions,  54  words  out  of  183,  or  29.5  per  cent;  in 
the  conclusions,  33  words  out  of  no,  or  30  per  cent.  These  phenomena 
are  made  plainer  in  Table  I. 

II.      ADDITIONS   AND   OMISSIONS   IN   THE   NARRATIVE 

There  are  in  the  Passion-narrative  of  Luke  (Luke  19:1 — 24:53) 
twenty-eight  additions  of  materials  quite  without  parallels  in  Mark, 
totaling,  at  a  minimum  count,  at  least  127^  verses.1  Of  these  twenty- 
eight  additions  only  three  (Luke  19:1-27,  23:4-15,  and  24:13-53), 
totaling  8 1  verses,  are  in  blocks  of  more  than  6  verses,  such  as  we  should 
expect  from  the  evangelist's  method  of  adding  materials  from  another 
source  in  other  parts  of  his  Gospel  (principle  3,  p.  19).  On  the  other 
hand  there  are  sixteen  additions  comprising  but  a  single  verse  or  part 
of  a  verse.  The  additions  are  distributed  as  follows:  in  Luke  19:28 — 
22:13,  mne  additions,  17  verses;  in  Luke  22:14 — 24:11,  seventeen 
additions,  34!  verses,  including  the  12  verses  of  the  block  Luke  23:4-15. 

In  the  earlier  portion  of  the  Gospel,  however,  the  phenomena  are 
just  the  reverse.  Here  the  added  materials  appear  in  six  blocks  (Luke 
3:5-15;  3:23-38;  4:2-30;  5:1-11;  6:20—8:3;  9:51— 18:14),  no  one 
of  which  contains  less  than  n  verses,  and  the  largest  of  which 
contain  83  and  351  verses  respectively.  Aside  from  these,  there  are 
but  six  additions  to  the  Markan  materials  (not  including  purely  editorial 
remarks),  to taling  8  verses  (Luke  3:17-18;  5:39;  9:31-32;  9:43;  18: 
34,  43).  Thus,  in  the  199  verses  containing  the  Markan  account  of 
Jesus'  ministry  there  are  six  slight  additions,  8  verses;  in  the  176  verses 
which  include  the  Mark-parallel  materials  of  the  Passion-narrative  there 
are  (the  larger  blocks  already  included)  fifteen  additions,  39!  verses,  or 
two  and  one-half  times  as  many  additions  containing  five  times  as  much 
material.  While  this  great  increase  in  the  number  and  importance  of 
small  additions  may  be  in  part  due  to  the  operation  of  principle  4 
(see  p.  19),  it  is  evident  that  there  is  here  a  considerable  difference  from 
the  literary  result  earlier  exhibited. 

The  phenomena  of  omissions  of  materials  which  appear  in  the  Markan 
narrative  are  not  so  striking.  There  are  in  the  Passion-narrative  thirty- 
five  omissions2  of  87  verses  in  all;  thirteen  of  these,  37  verses,  are  in 
the  section  Luke  19:28 — 22:13,  and  twenty-two  omissions,  47  verses, 

1  For  list  see  Appendix  I,  list  I. 

3  For  list  see  Appendix  I,  list  IV  B. 

93 


24  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

in  the  section  Luke  22: 14 — 24:11.  In  the  earlier  portion  of  the  Gospel, 
besides  Luke's  "Great  Omission"  of  the  75  verses  in  Mark  6:45 — 8:26, 
there  are  twenty-five  omissions,1  totaling  98^  verses.  Thus  in  the  case  of 
omissions  also,  while  the  amount  of  omitted  material  is  proportionately 
about  the  same,  the  blocks  of  material  are  smaller  in  the  Passion- 
narrative. 

III.      TRANSPOSITIONS   OF  THE   ORDER   OF   THE   NARRATIVE 

In  the  matter  of  transpositions  of  the  order  of  events,  we  come  again 
to  a  more  important  divergence  in  Luke's  literary  method.  It  has 
already  been  noticed  (principle  i,  p.  19;  see  also  pp.  6  f.,  9  f.)  that  Luke 
is  wont  to  preserve  the  original  order  of  his  sources.  Thus,  in  the  Markan 
materials  of  Luke  3:3 — 18: 14,  there  are  but  three  changes  in  the  order 
of  sections  (Luke  3:19-20;  6:17-19;  8:4-15),  none  of  which  affect 
the  sequence  of  the  narrative  (since  two  are  editorial  summaries  and 
the  third  a  discourse),  and  two  of  which  seem  designed  to  introduce 
and  conclude  the  Lesser  Interpolation.  There  are,  however,  three 
non-Markan  parallels  to  Markan  narratives  (Luke  4:16-30;  5:1-11; 
7:36-50),  no  one  of  which  occupies  the  position  corresponding  to  that  of 
the  Markan  narrative,  and  two  of  which  introduce  important  changes  in 
the  development  of  Jesus'  ministry;  but  it  has  been  shown  to  be  prob- 
able (see  p.  -13)  that  this  is  due  to  the  evangelist's  determination  to 
follow  some  other  source  than  Mark  in  its  order  as  well  as  in  its  content. 
Besides  these  transpositions  of  sections,  there  are  also  eight  transpositions 
of  verses  or  portions  of  verses.2  Five  of  these  (Luke  3:2-3;  8:296; 
8:420,  466;  9:140)  are  merely  descriptive  details,  one  (Luke  9:48^) 
is  discourse  material,  and  the  other  two  (Luke  8:516,  55^)  are  purely 
incidental  actions,  slightly  transposed  to  improve  the  unity  of  the  nar- 
rative. There  are,  then,  no  transpositions  of  the  order  of  events  which 
can  be  assigned  to  the  hand  of  Luke  himself;  in  the  cases  which  seem  to 
be  such  he  is  in  reality  following  one  of  his  sources. 

But  the  Passion-narrative  appears  to  contradict  this  rule  flatly; 
for  here  transpositions  are  numerous  and  important.3  There  are  four 
transpositions  of  sections,  all  of  which  affect  the  order  of  events  very 
considerably :  the  revelation  of  the  traitor  is  placed  after  the  Last  Supper, 
not  before  (Luke  22:21-23),  tne  quarrel  among  the  disciples  (Luke 

1  For  list  see  Appendix  I,  list  IV  A. 

2  For  list  see  Appendix  I,  list  V  A. 

3  For  list  see  Appendix  I,  list  V  B. 

94 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  25 

22 : 24-27)  is  brought  into  the  same  context  from  a  point  some  four  chap- 
ters earlier,  and  the  mocking  of  Jesus  by  the  police  (Luke  22:63-65) 
and  the  account  of  Peter's  denials  (Luke  22 : 56-62)  are  mutually  reversed 
and  then  placed  before,  not  after,  the  trial  of  Jesus  by  the  Sanhedrin. 
In  addition  there  are  fourteen  transpositions  of  verses  or  portions  of 
verses,  of  which  only  five  (Luke  23:19,  32,  38,  54;  24:100)  are  mere 
descriptive  details,  and  two  more  are  really  repetitions  (Luke  22 :4O,  70). 
This  leaves  seven  small  but  important  transpositions  to  be  added  to  the 
four  longer  ones  above:  the  departure  from  the  upper  room  (22 :39),  the 
meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin  (22:66),  Jesus'  answer  to  the  priests  (22:706), 
the  charges  against  Jesus  (23:2),  the  crucifixion  of  the  outlaws  (23:336), 
the  draft  of  vinegar  (23:36),  and  the  disaster  to  the  Temple  (23:456). 
All  these  occur  in  the  later  portion  of  the  Passion-narrative,  Luke 
22 : 14 — 24:  ii ;  but  there  is  also  one  transposition  in  the  earlier  portion, 
the  editorial  summary  in  Luke  21:37  (cf.  Mark  n :  19). 

While,  then,  the  number  of  transpositions  in  the  Passion-narrative 
(19)  is  not  disproportionate  to  that  in  the  earlier  portion  of  the  Gospel 
(15),  it  is  evident  that  their  importance,  particularly  in  the  third  section, 
is  far  greater;  and  an  explanation  must  be  found  also  for  this  apparent 
marked  change  in  the  evangelist's  literary  method. 

IV.      INTERWEAVING  AND  CONFLATION 

The  fourth  principle  of  Luke's  literary  method  (see  p.  19),  that  the 
evangelist  endeavors  to  intenveave  his  materials  as  closely  as  possible 
about  any  nexus  of  common  data,  will  apply  with  peculiar  force  to  a 
Passion-narrative,  where  we  find,  even  in  Mark,  a  closely  knit  and 
rapidly  moving  tale,  and  where  the  insertion  of  any  large  block  of  mate- 
rials, such  as  a  lengthy  discourse  by  Jesus  before  Pilate  or  Herod,  would 
be  obviously  inappropriate,  and  where  even  such  an  address  as  that  in 
John  13-17  seriously  interrupts  the  thread  of  the  story.  Hence  we 
find  that  the  phenomena  described  above,  especially  in  the  matter  of 
addition  and  transposition  of  materials,  result  in  a  narrative  which 
reveals  a  large  measure  of  interweaving  of  non-Markan  materials  with 
those  more  similar  to  Mark,  and  even  some  instances  of  quite  apparent 
conflation  of  sources  in  minute  details.  This  is,  it  is  true,  a  new  feature 
in  Luke's  literary  method  (but  cf.  Luke  3:16);  but  it  is  the  natural 
result  of  the  more  closely  knit  character  of  the  Passion-narrative  and 
the  necessarily  fixed  outline  of  any  narration  of  the  close  of  Jesus' 
life  (cf.  even  the  Fourth  Gospel)  reacting  upon  the  third  evangelist's 
custom  of  interweaving  his  sources  in  blocks.  Conflation  or  interpolation 

95 


26  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

of  sources  becomes  a  characteristic  literary  phenomenon  of  the  Passion- 
narrative,  and  as  such  merits  a  brief  description. 

First,  it  must  be  observed  that  interpolation  or  conflation  can  be 
proved  only  when  it  is  clumsily  done;  but  there  are  sufficient  instances 
of  conflation  of  unassimilated  sources  in  the  Passion-narrative  to  demon- 
strate the  presence  of  the  phenomenon.1  These  appear  to  be  of  two 
types:  (a)  cases  where  the  interpolated  fragment  interrupts  and  breaks 
the  thought  or  is  needlessly  redundant  (cf.  Luke  21:16-17,  20-22; 
22:69-71);  and  (b)  cases  where  it  is  merely  added  as  an  afterthought 
(cf.  Luke  24:100),  a  phenomenon  which  Luke  has  consistently  elimi- 
nated in  his  dealing  with  his  Markan  source  (see  p.  17,  and  cf.  Luke 

8:420,  S5&;  9:140). 

Secondly,  in  some  at  least  of  the  instances,  it  appears  to  be  a 
conflation  of  documents.  Thus  in  the  passage  from  the  Apocalyptic 
Discourse  describing  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  (Luke  21:20-22),  the  inter- 
ruption is  so  rude  as  to  quite  preclude  the  supposition  that  the  interpola- 
tion was  anything  but  documentary.  Verse  20  begins  with  a  description 
of  the  siege  of  the  city  (a  reference  quite  diverse  from  the  Markan  sug- 
gestion of  a  desecration  of  the  Temple).  Verse  2ia  agrees  exactly  with 
Mark  in  both  the  choice  and  the  order  of  the  words.  Its  reference  is 
to  the  country  regions  of  the  province,  and  the  passage  which  follows 
it  in  Mark  (closely  paralleled  in  Luke  17 : 31-3  2)  refers  to  rural  conditions 
rather  than  to  the  life  of  the  capital.  But  the  succeeding  passage  in 
Luke  (vss.  216-22)  harks  back  to  the  city;  the  proper  antecedent  of 
avTrjs  and  avr^v  can  only  be  the  city,  since  "those  in  the  country"  are 
forbidden  to  "enter  into  her."  Omission  of  the  interpolated  Markan 
passage  (vs.  21  a)  restores  the  continuity  of  the  thought,  and  makes, 
not  ry  'lovdala,  but  'Iepou<raXi7/i,  the  proper  grammatical  antecedent  of 
the  pronouns.  But  such  an  undigested  context  as  this  could  never 
result  from  the  adding  of  ideas  in  the  author's  mind,  and  it  must  be  purely 
documentary  and  mechanical. 

Thirdly,  this  interpolation  occurs  either  when  the  groundwork  of 
the  narrative  is  Markan,  as  in  the  interpolation  of  the  epigram  concerning 
the  Stone  of  Stumbling  (Luke  20:18),  or  non-Markan,  as  in  the  case 
above. 

V.      SOURCES  OF  THE  NON-MARKAN  MATERIALS 

The  investigations  above  have  brought  to  light  sufficient  data  to 
permit  us  to  form  a  preliminary  estimate  of  the  nature  of  the  sources 

1  For  list  see  Appendix  I,  list  VI. 


THE   SOURCES   OF   LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  27 

from  which  the  evangelist  drew  the  non-Markan  materials  of  his  Passion- 
narrative.  Such  an  estimate  will  have  to  be  more  fully  developed, 
tested,  perhaps  revised,  when  the  full  extent  of  these  materials  is  revealed; 
but  the  data  already  accumulated  are  sufficient  to  reveal  its  general 
form. 

The  first  supposition  would  be  that  the  evangelist  drew  these  mate- 
rials from  oral  tradition.  Surely  there  must  have  been  many  tales 
concerning  the  closing  days  of  Jesus'  life,  above  all,  of  that  supreme 
tragedy  about  which  centered  the  faith  of  the  church;  and  what  more 
likely  than  that  the  evangelist,  visiting  Jerusalem  in  company  with 
Paul  (cf.  Acts  21:15),  should  have  gathered  these  for  use  hi  his  preach- 
ing, stored  them  in  his  mind,  and  set  them  down  upon  papyrus  for  per- 
haps the  first  time  when  he  came  to  write  his  account  for  Theophilus  ? 
This,  assuredly,  would  be  the  simplest  hypothesis,  and  would  in  part 
satisfy  our  craving  to  find  some  place  hi  the  process  of  gospel-making 
for  the  influence  of  the  oral  tradition;  but  do  the  data  corroborate  this 
hypothesis  ? 

Most  important  of  these  data  are  the  transpositions  of  materials 
more  or  less  closely  paralleled  in  Mark,  especially  of  those  more  consid- 
erable blocks,  with  the  corrections  of  the  Markan  narrative  which  follow 
upon  such  changes  in  the  order  of  events.  In  an  evangelist  with  the 
avowed  purpose  of  the  historian,  who  is  usually  so  scrupulous  about  the 
historical  order  of  events,  this  can  mean  but  one  thing,  namely,  that  these 
events  were  definitely  located,  by  some  authority  at  his  disposal,  in  an 
order  which  differed  from  the  Markan.  Had  these  traditions  come  to 
him  in  scattered  fragments,  the  written  document  which  lay  before  him 
must  inevitably  have  prevailed  to  fix  their  order. 

Two  possibilities,  then,  lie  open  before  us:  either  a  considerable 
portion  of  these  non-Markan  materials  was  drawn  from  a  connected 
source,  oral  or  written,  or  else  some  one  or  more  of  those  who  could 
speak  with  authority  of  the  events  in  question  (cf.  Luke  1:2)  was  at 
pains  to  point  out  to  the  third  evangelist  the  particulars  in  which  the 
second  evangelist  had  been  in  error. 

This  latter  possibility  appears  to  offer  an  attractive  solution  of  the 
problem,  and  we  should  like  to  picture  the  beloved  physician  sitting 
at  the  feet  of  one  of  the  apostles  or  of  the  women  who  had  ministered  to 
Jesus;  but  difficulties  arise  in  the  application  of  the  hypothesis.  First 
of  these  is  the  extent  of  the  changes  introduced :  Luke's  informant  must 
have  told  him  that  the  Markan  version  of  the  Apocalyptic  Discourse 
was  not  the  original;  that  Peter  and  John  were  the  stewards  for  the 

97 


28  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

Last  Supper;  that  in  the  Markan  account  of  the  Supper  both  the  order 
of  events  and  the  order  of  the  elements  was  incorrect;  that  Jesus  did 
not  waken  the  disciples  in  Gethsemane  thrice  but  only  once;  that  Jesus 
healed  the  ear  of  the  high  priest's  servant  and  made  a  far  more  signifi- 
cant remark  on  the  occasion  of  his  arrest  than  that  recorded  by  Mark; 
that  his  trial  was  not  by  night  but  delayed  until  morning,  and  that  it  was 
not  a  true  trial  at  all,  since  no  verdict  was  reached;  that  Peter's  denials 
were  separated  by  certain  intervals,  and  that  his  repentance  came  with 
a  glance  from  Jesus;  that  the  Roman  soldiers  mocked  Jesus,  not  upon 
his  condemnation  (Mark  15:16),  but  when  he  hung  upon  the  cross 
(Luke  23:36);  that  the  centurion  at  the  cross  really  bespoke  himself 
like  a  pagan  and  not  like  a  believer ;  that  Joseph  of  Arimathaea  had  really 
defended  Jesus;  that  the  tomb  was  a  new  one;  and  finally  that  the 
Resurrection  appearances  were  not  in  Galilee  but  in  and  about  Jerusa- 
lem. These  sixteen  points  are  all  either  corrections  by  Luke  where  he 
substitutes  another  account  for  the  Markan,  transpositions  of  the  Markan 
order,  or  points  which  appear  incapable  of  independent  transmission, 
and  which  must  therefore  involve  a  version  of  the  whole  story  in  which 
they  appear  unless  they  are  explicit  corrections  of  the  Markan  version. 
But  taken  together  their  extent  is  so  considerable  as  to  constitute  prac- 
tically a  running  commentary  upon  the  whole  of  the  Passion-story. 
But  the  Christians  of  the  apostolic  age  were  not  commentators,  scho- 
lastics, least  of  all  where  their  own  infant  records  were  concerned.  Nor 
is  it  at  all  likely  that  Luke  would  have  brought  his  copy  of  Mark — a 
Greek  gospel — to  the  Jewish  church  in  Jerusalem  in  the  brief  period 
that  intervened  between  the  probable  date  of  our  earliest  Gospel  and 
Titus'  destruction  of  the  Holy  City.  Further,  be  it  remarked  that  such 
a  theory  of  correction  fails  entirely  to  account  both  for  that  marked 
change  in  the  amount  of  Luke's  agreement  with  Mark,  linguistically, 
which  has  been  pointed  out,  and  for  the  limitation  of  this  change  to 
the  Passion-story.  And,  finally,  as  far  as  can  be  determined,  the  trans- 
positions of  any  serious  import  in  earlier  portions  of  the  Third  Gospel 
are  due  to  the  use  of  a  non-Markan  source  of  definite  construction. 

The  hypothesis  that  Luke  was  set  right  on  points  where  Mark  had 
erred  becomes  therefore  scarcely  tenable,  and  we  are  left  to  the  alterna- 
tive that  at  least  a  considerable  portion  of  the  non-Markan  materials 
came  to  the  third  evangelist  as  a  definitely  ordered  narration.  It  re- 
mains to  inquire  whether  this  theory  is  in  accord  with  the  known  facts. 

It  is  true  that  certain  of  the  non-Markan  materials  of  the  Passion- 
narrative  are  quite  capable  of  independent  transmission  as  mere  frag- 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKEJS   PASSION-NARRATIVE  29 

merits  of  the  oral  tradition.  Such  are  pre-eminently  the  short  "logia" 
of  Jesus,  of  which  many  are  inserted  into  the  narration  (for  example, 
Luke  19:41-44;  20:18;  22:28-30,  35-39,  67^-68).  Some  of  the  inci- 
dents related  also  might  be  gleaned  by  a  visitor  to  Jerusalem :  the  descent 
of  the  Mount  of  Olives  (Luke  19:37,  a  striking  sign  of  acquaintance  with 
the  actual  scene)  may  early  have  been  marked  by  a  tiny  oratory,  not 
only  as  the  spot  where  Jesus  was  met  by  the  crowds  and  halted  to  lament 
the  city,  but  also  as  the  scene  of  the  Apocalyptic  Discourse  and  perhaps 
of  the  withering  of  the  fig  tree.  The  order  of  the  elements  in  the  Euchar- 
ist, certainly  not  the  Pauline  (cf.  I  Cor.  n :  23-25),  may  have  been  that 
of  the  Jerusalem  community,  with  which  a  pilgrim  would  surely  be  struck, 
or  possibly  even  a  ritual  for  the  Agape;  if  there  were  two  versions  of 
the  Lord's  Prayer  (cf.  Luke  11:2-4;  Matt.  6:9-13),  equal  diversity 
in  the  Eucharist  was  possible;  though  it  is  strange  that  Luke  the  Pauline 
evangelist  and  not  Mark  the  native  of  Jerusalem  (cf.  Acts  12:12)  should 
record  for  us  the  Jerusalem  usage.  Yet  the  extent  of  the  materials  which 
cannot  have  been  so  gathered,  and  must  have  stood  in  a  source  which 
possessed  definite  order  and  construction  of  its  own,  remains  large  enough 
to  form  practically  a  complete  narrative  of  the  Passion-history,  a  "little 
gospel. "  Economy  of  hypothesis  would  suggest  that  these  other  mate- 
rials also  were  then  a  part  of  it. 

But  if  there  was  another  complete  account  of  the  close  of  Jesus* 
life,  it  necessarily  follows  that  it  must  have  overlapped  the  Markan 
account  at  many  points.  A  comparison  of  the  Passion-narrative  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  which  at  other  points  is  so  different,  with  that  of  the 
Synoptics  is  sufficient  to  show  how  closely  any  story  of  this  portion  of 
Jesus'  career  must  adhere  to  the  accepted  outline.  There  must  then 
have  been  very  many  duplicate  accounts  in  the  two  sources  which  Luke 
would  appear  to  have  used,  and  this  fact  becomes  of  importance  in  view 
of  the  marked  decrease  of  Luke's  agreement  with  Mark.  In  other  words 
the  supposition  is  raised  that  an  account  of  an  event,  although  told  also 
in  Mark,  may,  if  related  in  considerably  different  terms,  be  taken  from 
a  somewhat  extensive  and  complete  non-Markan  Passion-history. 

As  to  whether  the  Passion-history  came  to  the  evangelist  in  oral  or 
in  written  form,  it  is  not  possible  to  decide  on  the  basis  of  the  evidence 
yet  adduced.  But  the  preservation  of  an  oral  cycle  in  a  form  sufficiently 
fixed  to  outweigh  the  definite  arrangement  of  the  written  Markan  docu- 
ment is  a  sufficiently  difficult  hypothesis.  The  character  of  certain  of 
the  interpolations,  also,  appears  to  indicate  that  the  evangelist  must  have 
been  dealing  not  with  one  written  source  only,  but  with  two. 

99 


30  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

It  must  therefore  be  concluded  that  for  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
materials  of  his  Passion-narrative  the  third  evangelist  possessed  a  second 
narrative— possibly  a  cycle  of  oral  tradition,  but  more  probably  a  written 
document — with  a  fixed  form  and  unity  of  its  own.  This  source,  since 
it  deals  exclusively  with  scenes  of  Jesus'  life  laid  in  Jerusalem,  will  for 
the  rest  of  this  study  be  designated  as  the  "Jerusalem  source"  and  indi- 
cated by  the  letter  "J." 


100 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  NON-MARKAN  MATERIALS  IN  THE  PASSION-NARRATIVE 

It  now  becomes  our  task  to  determine  more  exactly  just  what 
materials  are  to  be  assigned  to  the  Jerusalem  source.  In  this  task  the 
first  and  most  prominent  criterion  of  non-Markan  materials  must,  of 
course,  be  found  in  want  of  agreement  with  the  Second  Gospel;  and  all 
of  the  materials  which  are  peculiar  to  Luke,  with  a  considerable  portion, 
at  least,  of  those  which  are  only  remotely  parallel  to  our  earliest  Gospel, 
must  be  regarded  as  of  non-Markan  origin,  even  when  not  assignable 
to  J  upon  more  specific  grounds.  But,  since  narratives  of  the  Passion- 
history  must  run  closely  parallel,  it  must  also  be  regarded  as  possible 
that  materials  more  closely  hi  agreement  with  Mark  are  also  either  drawn 
from  J  or  employed  to  replace  similar  materials  that  must  have  stood  in 
that  source  also.  The  materials  of  our  study  may  be  divided,  therefore, 
according  to  their  agreement  with  the  Second  Gospel,  into  three  classes:1 

Class  I.  Materials  peculiar  to  Luke. 

Class  II.  Materials  in  which  there  is  but  a  slight  agreement  with 
the  Markan  parallel. 

Class  III.  Materials  in  which  the  agreement  is  fairly  close. 

However,  while  the  first  criterion  of  non-Markan  origin  is  this  want 
of  agreement,  it  is  evident  both  that  mere  remoteness  from  Mark  is  not 
sufficient  ground  for  assigning  materials  to  J,  and  also  that  materials 
not  thus  dissimilar  to  Mark  may  upon  other  grounds  be  assigned  to  J. 
Since,  as  we  have  seen  (p.  19),  Luke  habitually  uses  his  sources  in  blocks 
of  considerable  size,  a  strong  presumption  is  created  that  materials  which 
stand  near  to,  or  in  any  sort  of  connection  with,  the  materials  clearly 
assignable  to  a  non-Markan  source  were  also  drawn  from  the  same  source. 
Indeed,  this  is  the  chief  significance  of  the  general  want  of  agreement  with 

1  For  list  see  Appendix  I,  lists  I,  II,  and  III.  A  satisfactory  basis  for  the 
discrimination  of  "remote  parallels"  is  hardly  to  be  discovered,  as  the  parallelism 
depends  upon  more  than  the  merely  mechanical  fact  of  agreement  in  language;  for 
such  agreement  may  consist  entirely  in  unimportant  words,  or,  on  the  other  hand, 
slight  agreement  hi  the  key-words  may  be  of  great  importance.  As  an  arbitrary 
means  of  discrimination,  however,  agreement  in  40  per  cent  of  the  language  in 
narrative  sections  (including  parables)  and  in  50  per  cent  of  the  words  in  discourse 
passages  (except  the  narrative  portion  of  parables)  has  been  taken  as  "close 
parallelism." 

[101  31 


32  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

Mark  throughout  the  section  Luke  2  2 : 14 — 24 : 1 1 .  This  fact  can  hardly 
be  too  strongly  emphasized.  To  the  mechanical  fact  of  diversity  from 
the  Markan  version  there  must  be  added,  therefore,  further  criteria 
by  which  the  J  materials  of  the  Passion-narrative  may  be  discriminated. 
These  principles  of  discrimination  will  be : 

1)  That  the  material  corrects  or  alters  in  a  significant  degree  the 
Markan  account; 

2)  that  it  has  definite  narrative  relations  which  cannot  be  accounted 
for  by  the  Markan  source; 

3)  that  it  has  definite  discourse  relations  which  cannot  be  accounted 
for  by  the  Markan  source; 

4)  that  its  context  contains  J  materials ; 

5)  that  it  betrays  a  point  of  view  similar  to  J,  or  is  otherwise  related 
to  the  J  materials;  or 

6)  that,  while  non-Markan,  the  material  must  have  had  some 
source  more  definite  than  floating  traditions  (principle  of  economy  of 
hypothesis). 

It  is  now  our  task  to  examine  in  detail  the  materials  of  the  Passion- 
narrative,  and  by  the  application  of  these  principles  to  discriminate  such 
of  them  as  appear  to  have  been  drawn  from  some  non-Markan  source  of 
definite  order  and  form,  that  is,  from  J.  But  since  the  chief  criterion 
of  such  assignment  must  still  be  want  of  agreement  with  Mark,  our 
method  must  be  first  to  seek  in  each  section  of  the  narrative  for  some 
materials  of  Class  I  or  Class  II  (which  show  this  want  of  agreement), 
and  then  to  determine  the  application  to  them,  and  to  the  remaining 
materials  of  the  section,  of  the  principles  of  discrimination. 

It  must  be  noted,  also,  that  the  J  source,  equally  with  the  Markan, 
is  liable  to  editorial  revision,  and  that  we  may  often  expect  to  find  mate- 
rials which  may  well  have  been  drawn  from  J  standing  in  the  narrative 
in  language  which  is  largely  that  of  the  evangelist.  But  such  materials 
must,  of  course,  be  regarded  in  our  examination  of  the  J  source,  as  must 
also  even  those  cases  where  it  is  evident  that  something  has  been  omitted 
from  J  or  replaced  by  a  bit  of  Markan  material. 

Turning  now  to  a  consideration  of  the  Passion-narrative,  it  has 
already  been  observed  that  in  respect  of  agreement  with  Mark  it  falls 
into  four  sections,  the  first  (Luke  19:1-27)  containing  no  Mark-parallel 
materials,  the  second  (Luke  19:28 — 22:13)  possessing  considerable 
agreement  with  Mark,  the  third  (Luke  22:14 — 24:11)  but  remotely 
parallel  to  Mark,  and  the  fourth  (Luke  24: 13-53)  extending  beyond  the 
point  where  our  original  Mark  breaks  off.  The  first  of  these  seems  rather 

102 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  33 

to  have  been  drawn  from  P  than  from  J;  for  it  stands  previous  to  the 
triumphal  entry  (the  natural  beginning  of  a  Passion-gospel),  and  its 
affinities  are  rather  with  P  materials.  The  idea  of  repentance  as  effect- 
ive in  securing  salvation  is  shared  by  the  incident  of  Zacchaeus  with 
the  parable  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican  (Luke  18:9-14),  and  the 
parabolic  form  of  the  second  incident  (Luke  19: 11-27)  connects  it  rather 
with  P  than  with  J,  since  J  contains  no  other  parable.  In  the  second 
section,  also,  it  will  be  observed  that  the  non-Markan  materials  are 
inserted  mainly  in  two  blocks  (cf.  principle  3,  p.  19),  the  first  (Luke 
19:37-44)  describing  Jesus'  appearance  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  second 
(Luke  21 : 12-38)  containing  an  Apocalyptic  Discourse.  These  materials 
must  be  examined  more  closely. 

I.      JESUS'  PUBLIC  MINISTRY  IN  JERUSALEM 

1.  Jesus'  approach  to  Jerusalem   (Luke   19:28-40). — This  section 
contains  at  least  two  and  one-half  verses  of  Class  I,  peculiar  to  Luke, 
that  is,  vss.  370,  39,  40.    These  must  be  assigned  to  J  upon  principle 
2,  since  a  further  narrative  setting  is  needed  to  explain  Jesus'  presence 
in  Jerusalem  and  to  describe  the  reason  for  the  Pharisees'  vexation.    But 
the  presence  of  these  is  sufficient  to  render  probable  the  presence  of  other 
J  materials  also.    Verse  37,  it  will  be  noticed,  contains  not  a  single 
agreement  with  Mark,  and  it  is  likely,  therefore,  that  the  whole  verse, 
and  not  merely  the  very  definite  designation  of  the  site,  was  drawn  from  J. 
But  vs.  37  hardly  gives  an  adequate  occasion  for  the  anger  of  the  Phari- 
sees, for  there  Jesus  is  hailed  simply  for  his  mighty  works;  so  that  vs.  38, 
with  its  ascription  to  Jesus  of  greater  honor,  is  necessary  to  the  J  context 
(cf.  principle  2).    This  verse,  moreover,  while  belonging  to  Class  III, 
shows  such  free  recasting  and  such  diversity  in  the  order  of  the  common 
words  that  its  agreements  should  be  explained  rather  by  a  common 
reminiscence  of  the  Old  Testament  language  than  from  the  Markan 
source.    The  block  vss.  37-40  may  therefore  be  ascribed  to  J  as  a  whole; 
but  even   this  lacks  an  adequate  introduction  and  setting.     Verses 
29-36  are  plainly  drawn  from  the  Markan  source;  but  vs.  28  contains  a 
detail  which  is  not  explicit  in  Mark,  and  which  is  necessary  to  the  J 
block  which  follows.     This  too  may  therefore  be  assigned  to  J  (principles 
2,  4),  although  probably  largely  editorial  in  its  present  language,  and 
though  the  opening  of  the  J  narrative  (if  it  did  begin  at  this  point) 
must  have  been  a  more  extended  fixing  of  the  scene. 

2.  Jesus1   lament  over  Jerusalem   (Luke   19:41-44). — This  section 
is  entirely  from  Class  I,  and  is  of  such  nature  that  its  independent 

103 


34  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC  STUDIES 

transmission  in  oral  tradition  would  not  be  difficult.  It  betrays  the 
same  interest  in  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem  which  actuates  other  portions 
of  J  (cf.  Luke  21 : 20-24;  23 : 27~3I)  and  appears  in  no  other  portion  of 
the  Gospel  (Luke  13:34-35,  even,  implies  a  spiritual,  not  a  physical, 
disaster).  It  may  therefore  (principle  5)  be  assigned  to  J. 

3.  Jesus'   public   ministry   in   Jerusalem    (Luke    19:47-48). — The 
account  of  the  Cleansing  of  the  Temple  is  obviously  Markan,  and  seems 
to  exclude  any  considerable  period  of  activity  by  Jesus  in  Jerusalem. 
But  these  verses,  of  Class  II  agreement,  though  in  their  present  form 
considerably  rewrought,  contain  a  number  of  elements  not  found  in 
Mark.     Chief  of  these  is  the  indication  of  a  longer  period  of  ministry 
in  Jerusalem  than  the  short  week  usually  accepted  on  the  basis  of  Mark 
and  John.1    As  this  appears  again  in  J  (?)  materials  (principle  5;  see 
page  74),  the  verses  may  have  been  drawn  from  J.    Moreover,  they 
stand  in  the  same  context  with  (principle  4),  and  seem  to  form  the 
conclusion  to  (principle  2) ,  the  block  of  J  materials  just  preceding,  and 
may  therefore  be  ascribed  to  J.    But  editorial  handling,  and  perhaps 
interpolation  of  a  few  Markan  elements,  must  remain  an  admitted 
possibility. 

4.  The  "Stone  of  Stumbling"   (Luke   20:17-18).— The  comment, 
" everyone  that  falleth  on  that  stone,"  etc.,  verse  18,  is  non-Markan, 
Class  I;  but  it  has  no  particular  connection  with  the  preceding  J  mate- 
rials.   In  vs.  17  (Class  II)  only  the  quotation  agrees  with  Mark;  so  there 
may  possibly  have  been  no  use  of  the  Markan  source.    Moreover,  vs.  18 
requires  some  previous  definition,  and  it  seems  probable  that  the  two 
verses  circulated  together,  perhaps  in  some  volume  of  "christological 
prophecies,"  like  the  later  eK\oyal  of  Melito  of  Sardis  (Eus.  H.E.  iv.  26. 
13),  or  the  Testimonies  of  Cyprian,  and  that  the  presence  of  the  prophecy 
in  both  sources  was  the  nexus  for  the  insertion  of  vs.  18  here,  although 
it  had  no  bearing  upon  the  theme  of  the  parable. 

5.  Jesus  and  the  Intellectuals   (Luke   20:20-38). — In  this  passage 
there  are  two  verses  of  Class  I  (34,  350,  366)  and  three  more  of  Class 
II  (20,  26,  356-3 6a).    Verses  20,  26  are  connected  with  one  another  by 
the  use  in  each  of  the  phrase  €7riXaj3eo-0cu  a&roi)  \6yov  (/Scares),  which 
occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament  (eirikafjLpaveadcu.  is  a  charac- 
teristic Lukan  word,  but  in  a  novel  sense  here) ;  and  together  they  con- 
stitute an  epitome  of  the  attempt  to  involve  Jesus  in  difficulties,  which 
follows  well  upon  the  last  J  passage  (Luke  19 : 47-48) .    The  motive  in  the 
two  verses  is  different — in  vs.  20  to  compromise  Jesus  in  the  eyes  of  the 

1  Cf.  J.  Wellhausen,  Das  Evangelium  Lucae,  p.  no. 

104 


THE  SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  35 

Roman  authorities,  in  vs.  26  of  the  people — but  undoubtedly  both  of  these 
things  were  necessary;  and  such  editorial  expansion  as  we  have  here,  if 
the  only  source  be  Markan,  is  not  usual  with  Luke,  whose  tendency  is 
rather  to  slight  abbreviation.  But  the  hypothesis  that  the  purpose  of 
these  verses  is  to  serve  as  an  epitome  of  the  attacks  is  shaken  by  the 
inclusion  of  vss.  34-36  in  the  same  source;  so  it  must  be  with  large  reser- 
vations that  the  verses  are  included  in  the  J  materials  (principle  6); 
while  vss.  21-25,  in  spite  of  the  peculiar  word  06po$  (a  mere  improvement 
of  the  Latinism  /o^o-os),  of  which  Bernhard  Weiss1  makes  much,  are 
certainly  derived  simply  from  Mark. 

So  also  is  the  problem  of  the  Woman  with  Seven  Husbands  (vss- 
27-33)  j  but  the  three  following  verses  (34-36)  present  a  problem.  Verses 
34-350,  366  contain  elements  not  found  at  all  in  Mark,  and  must  there- 
fore be  placed  in  Class  I,  and  the  remainder  are  in  but  general  agreement 
with  Mark.  But  they  are  incomplete  as  they  stand,  and  require  some 
connection  (perhaps  a  widow's  query  regarding  marriage  in  the  future 
state,  or  possibly  a  command  to  celibacy);  yet  they  do  not  seem  to 
connect  with  any  contiguous  J  materials.  However,  the  passage  can 
hardly  be  merely  an  editorial  expansion,  for  its  oracular  form  and  its 
balanced  construction  give  it  a  more  original  appearance  than  the  Mark 
parallel,  and  it  cannot  have  stood  alone.  Either,  therefore,  it  must 
be  assumed  to  be  a  more  original  form  of  the  Markan  source,  or  it  must 
be  assigned  (principle  6)  to  some  portion  of  J.  Verses  37-38  show  no 
more  than  the  usual  amount  of  editorial  revision  of  Markan  materials; 
and  the  rest  of  the  chapter  is  plainly  drawn  from  the  Markan  source. 

II.      THE   APOCALYPTIC  DISCOURSE 

It  has  long  been  recognized  that  the  Lukan  version  of  the  Apoca- 
lyptic Discourse  differs  very  considerably  from  the  Markan  version, 
which  is  largely  followed  by  the  First  Gospel.  Attention  has  been  cen- 
tered, in  particular,  upon  the  closer  definition  of  the  siege  of  Jerusalem 
in  the  Lukan  account;  but  it  has  generally  been  taken  for  granted  that 
here  the  third  evangelist  was  recasting  the  Markan  prediction  of  the 
desecration  of  the  Temple  in  view  of  his  own  knowledge  of  the  events  of 
the  destruction  of  the  city.  But  it  has  already  been  shown  (see  p.  26) 
that  this  hypothesis  is  hardly  adequate  and  that  there  is  reason  to  believe 
that  Luke  was  making  use,  in  this  very  passage,  not  of  one  documentary 
source,  but  of  two.  We  may  with  reason,  therefore,  seek  still  other  J 
materials  in  the  discourse. 

1  Bernhard  Weiss,  Die  Qudlen  des  Lukasevangeliums,  pp.  213  ff. 

105 


36  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

As  peculiar  materials  (Class  I)  may  be  listed  vss.  18,  24,  256-260, 
28;  and  as  remote  parallels  (Class  II)  vss.  11-16,  19-20,  216-22,  236, 
34-36.  These  two  groups  of  materials  are  sufficient  to  form  a  defi- 
nitely constructed  discourse;  and  therefore  (principle  3)  so  far  as  they 
are  not  Markan  they  should  be  ascribed  to  J.  The  presence  of  materials 
of  Class  I  creates  a  presumption  that  those  of  Class  II  also  are  non- 
Markan;  but  these  must  be  more  closely  examined. 

i.  The  persecution  of  the  disciples  (Luke  21:12-19). — ^n  this  section 
we  may  start  from  the  single  peculiar  verse  (18).  This  is  here  usually 
interpreted  of  spiritual  salvation;1  but  it  must  be  obs'erved  that  it  is 
elsewhere  always  used,  not  only  in  the  Old  Testament  (I  Sam.  14:45; 
II  Sam.  14:11;  I  Kings  1:52),  but  also  hi  Luke  (Luke  12:7;  Acts 
27:34)  of  physical  preservation;  therefore  while  this  phrase  must  here 
have  early  received  a  spiritual  interpretation,  it  would  yet  seem  to  have 
been  intended  literally  in  the  first  instance.  Such  a  literal  interpretation 
agrees,  furthermore,  with  the  expression  in  vs.  15  of  the  confidence  that 
the  inspiration  of  the  Christian  would  carry  him  through  all  dangers  and 
give  him  irresistible  eloquence.  Indeed,  joining  vss.  15  and  18,  we  have  a 
self-consistent  and  coherent  context.  This,  however,  throws  suspicion 
upon  vss.  16-17,  which  interrupt  this  connection.  Verse  17  is  in  entire 
agreement  with  Mark  and  may  be  dismissed  at  once  as  drawn  from  that 
source;  but  vs.  16  stands  upon  the  border  line  of  agreement  and  has  been 
listed  in  Class  II.  It  contains,  however,  no  ideas  (save  the  addition  of 
<f>i\w)  not  present  in  the  Markan  parallel,  and  its  want  of  agreement  in 
language  is  largely  due  to  the  Lukan  tendency  to  generalize  (cf.  Luke 
i8:29  =  Mark  10:29),  which  gives  it  a  secondary  appearance,  aside  from 
its  agreements  with  Mark.  Since  it  moreover  flatly  contradicts  vs.  18,  it 
is  probably  Markan.  Verse  14  is  closely  connected  with,  and  essential  to, 
vs.  15,  and  therefore  (principle  3)  assigned  to  J.  So,  also,  the  first  clause 
of  vs.  12,  which  is  quite  different  in  language  from  the  Markan  parallel ; 
but  the  latter  clauses  of  this  same  verse  contain  many  agreements  with 
Mark,  and  may  be  interpolations  from  that  source,  though  the  only 
sign  of  conflation  here  is  a  slight  degree  of  redundancy.  But  vs.  13  is  an 
entire  recasting  of  the  Markan  phrase  and  probably  (principles  i,  4) 
from  J.  So  in  a  greater  degree  vs.  19,  which  concludes  the  paragraph; 
for  while  the  Markan  version  refers  plainly  to  salvation  at  the  final 
consummation  (rcXos),  this  verse  appears  to  refer  rather  to  an  imminent 
and  a  physical  salvation,  thus  connecting  with  vs.  18  (principles  i,  3,  5). 

1  Cf.,  for  example,  Plummer,  St.  Luke,  p.  480;  B.  Weiss,  op.  cit.,  p.  273;  Well- 
hausen,  op.  cit.,  p.  117,  etc. 

106 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  37 

Thus  in  the  paragraph  Luke  21:12-19  we  have  a  J  discourse  with 
Markan  interpolations  in  vss.  16-17  and  perhaps  i2bc. 

2.  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (Luke  21:20-24).— The  first  part 
of  this  paragraph  has  already  been  discussed  (p.  26)  and  vss.  20,  2ib 
assigned  to  J.     This  assignment  is  further  supported  by  the  presence 
of  vss.  22,  24,  which  are  from  Class  I.    Verse  236  (Class  II)  seems  closely 
connected  with  vs.  24  (principle  3),  while  vs.  230  is  in  entire  agreement 
with  Mark  and  probably,  like  vs.  210,  drawn  from  that  source;   since, 
while  it  does  not  interrupt  the  connection,  it  is  not  essential  to  it. 
This  paragraph  also,  then,  is  drawn  from  J,  with  Markan  interpolations 
in  vss.  210,  230. 

3.  The  overthrow  of  the  Gentiles  (Luke  21 : 25-28). — In  this  paragraph 
there  are  two  verses  (256-260,  28)  of  Class  I  materials  and  two  verses 
(250,  266-27)  of  Class  III.     Between  vss.  27  and  28  there  is  an  obvious 
contradiction  ;x  for  it  is  a  decided  anticlimax  to  bid  the  faithful  to  begin 
to  hope  after  the  Parousia  of  their  Lord,  the  central  point  of  their  hope, 
has  come  to  pass.    Here  also,  therefore,  we  have  conflation  of  two  sources, 
and  to  vs.  28  we  may  join  (principle  3)  its  necessary  introduction,  vss. 
256-260.    Verse  250  also,  although  of  Class  III,  presents  but  a  slight 
similarity  to  the  Markan  parallel,  and  may  well  have  belonged  to  J; 
but  vs.  266  agrees  with  Matthew  (Matt.  24:29^)  and  is  probably,  like 
the  verse  that  follows  it,  Markan.    In  this  paragraph  then  we  have  a 
J  discourse  with  one  interpolation  from  Mark,  vss.  266-27. 

4.  Introduction  of  the  Apocalyptic  Discourse  in  J  (Luke  21:5-11). 
— The  paragraph  Luke  21:5-11  is  largely  parallel  to  Mark,  although 
treated  with  considerable  freedom  in  editorial  revision,  and  showing 
considerable  less  agreement  with  Mark  than  does  the  corresponding 
passage  hi  Matthew.    There  are  few  added  ideas  not  implied  in  Mark; 
most  important  of  these  are  avadr)^acnv  in  vs.  5,  the  addition  6  /catpos 
TjyjiKev  ....  oTTto-w  avr&v  in  vs.  8,  and  the  latter  clause  of  vs.  u.     The 
first  of  these,  however,  is  not  significant,  and  the  second  may  easily  be  an 
editorial  reminiscence  from  the  general  fund  of  apocalyptic.     The  fact, 
further,  that  a  doublet  of  vs.  66,  in  Luke  19 : 446,  has  already  been  ascribed 
to  J  supports  the  hypothesis  of  Markan  origin  (cf.  pp.  17-18),  and  also 
suggests  that  Luke  19:41-44  may  have  formed  the  original  introduction 
to  the  Apocalyptic  Discourse  in  J.    And  thai  paragraph  does  indeed 
form  a  smooth  connection  with  the  discourse,  if  the  intervening  frag- 
ments of  materials  possibly  derived  from  J  be  omitted. 

1  Cf.  Bernhard  Weiss,  op.  tit.,  p.  275. 

107 


38  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

However,  in  vs.  10  there  is  a  new  introduction — rore  ehcyev  aurots — 
and  the  remainder  of  the  verse,  while  in  total  agreement  with  Mark, 
is  merely  an  Old  Testament  quotation  (cf.  Isa.  19: 2);  so  that,  omitting 
vs.  na  as  interpolated  by  the  evangelist  or  a  later  scribe  from  Mark,  we 
have  in  vss.  10,  nb  a  sufficient  introduction  for  the  discourse,  which  may 
very  possibly  be  assigned  to  J. 

5.  The  lesson  of  the  coming  disaster  (Luke  21:34-36). — There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  Luke  21 : 29-33  are  entirely  Markan;  the  exact  agree- 
ment of  the  application,  verses  32-33,  with  Mark,  in  language  and  in 
order,  is  sufficient  proof,  while  greater  editorial  freedom  is  usually  to 
be  expected  in  the  narrative  portion  of  a  parable  (cf.  Luke  8:4-15  and 
parallels). 

Verses  34-36  stand  in  the  same  position  as  a  Markan  warning;  but 
here  the  similarity  ends,  and  this  exhortation  should  be  ascribed  there- 
fore to  J  as  the  conclusion  of  that  version  of  the  discourse  (principle  3). 

6.  Conclusion  of  the  discourse  (Luke  21:37-38). — These  two  verses 
find  a  remote  parallel,  much  less  complete,  in  Mark  n :  19;  but  the  two 
facts  of  considerable  expansion  and  of  transposition  to  this  location 
(principle  i),  with  the  connection  of  these  verses  with  J  materials 
(principle  4),  would  seem  to  indicate  that  these  verses,  though  perhaps 
editorial  in  their  present  form,  were  drawn  from  J.    To  this  evidence 
must  be  added  the  fact  that  here  again,   as  in   19:47  and  22:39 
(principle  5;  but  also  in  20:1),  Jesus'  ministry  in  Jerusalem  is  repre- 
sented as  having  been  one  of  considerable  duration. 

It  would  therefore  appear  that  we  have  in  the  Apocalyptic  Discourse 
of  Luke  largely  an  apocalypse  from  the  J  source,  which  probably  included 
Luke  21:10,  116,  120,  13-15,  18-20,  216-22,  236-26(1,  28,  34-38;  and 
which  was  interpolated,  by  the  evangelist  probably,  from  the  Markan 
source. 

III.      THE  LAST   SUPPER  AND  THE   FAREWELL  DISCOURSE 

The  next  considerable  block  of  materials  not  paralleled  in  Mark 
(Class  I)  is  found  in  the  twenty-second  chapter.  Here  the  amount  of 
peculiar  materials  (Luke  22: 15-17,  2706,  28-32,  35-38)  is  so  considerable 
as  to  constitute  really  another  discourse,  and  this  discourse  (Luke 
22:24-38)  has  a  definite  construction  of  its  own:  first,  the  attention  is 
diverted  from  the  honors  of  discipleship  to  its  responsibilities  (vss.  24-27) ; 
then  the  promise  is  given  of  due  rewards  for  responsibilities  already  met 
(vss.  28-30),  followed  by  an  affirmation  of  the  peculiar  responsibility  of 
the  leader  in  view  of  the  peril  of  all  (vss.  31-32);  and  finally  there  is  a 

108 


39 

solemn  warning  of  the  reality  of  that  peril  (vss.  35-38).  This  Farewell 
Discourse,  like  that  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  is  brought  into  connection 
with  the  Last  Supper. 

i.  The  Last  Supper  (Luke  22:14-23). — In  this  section  there  is  a 
problem  of  the  text  which  it  is  not  our  present  province  to  solve;  vss. 
196-20  are  bracketed  by  Westcott  and  Hort  as  a  "Western  non- 
interpolation,"  but  are  accepted  by  von  Soden  and  by  Tischendorf; 
while  Harnack1  argues  that  the  evangelist  who  incorporated  Luke  24 : 30 
and  Acts  27:35  could  hardly  have  omitted  here  the  breaking  of  the  bread. 
On  the  other  hand  vss.  19-20  are  hi  very  close  agreement  with  I  Cor. 
ii :  23-25,  and  it  is  necessary  either  to  agree  with  Wellhausen2  that  they 
were  interpolated  from  that  source  by  a  later  hand,  simply  because  the 
Lukan  account  hi  vss.  14-18  varied  so  greatly  from  the  familiar  ritual  of 
the  Eucharist,  or  to  suppose  that  Luke  himself,  the  companion  of  Paul, 
has  here  inserted  the  ritual  familiar  to  both  of  them.  In  either  case 
the  verses  would  seem  to  have  been  drawn  from  the  oral  tradition  of  the 
ritual  rather  than  from  a  more  connected  historical  narrative.  The 
problem  remains,  however,  whether  the  division  is  to  be  made  at 
the  beginning  of  vs.  19  with  Wellhausen,  or  after  the  words  r6  o-co/xa  /*ou, 
as  by  Westcott  and  Hort;  for  hi  the  latter  case  there  is  involved  a 
transposition  of  the  order  of  the  elements  which  must  likewise  be 
attributed  to  J  (principle  i).  It  may  be  noted  that  the  phenomena  of 
literary  agreement  (the  close  agreement  with  I  Corinthians  in  particular) 
favor  Wellhausen's  explanation;  but  here,  as  elsewhere,  we  shall  not 
go  back  of  the  Westcott-Hort  text.3 

The  section  falls  into  two  halves,  the  Supper  (vss.  14-20)  and  the 
Announcement  of  the  Betrayal  (vss.  21-23);  the  transposition  of  the  two 
events  from  their  Markan  order  is  evidence  (principle  i;  cf.  literary 
principle  i,  p.  19)  that  both  portions  stood  in  the  J  source.  In  the 
former  portion  there  are:  of  Class  I  agreements,  vss.  15-16,  and  perhaps 
vs.  17;  of  Class  II,  vss.  14,  17;  of  Class  III,  vss.  18-190.  Of  these  it  is 
evident  that  vss.  14-16  are  drawn  from  J,  and  since  the  remark  in  vs.  17 
is  so  different  from  that  reported  by  Mark,  this  too  is  probably  drawn 
from  J.  Verse  18  agrees  with  Mark  in  14  of  21  words,  or  66  per  cent; 

1  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  76;  Lukas  der  Arzt,  p.  53. 

2  Op.  tit.,  pp.  121  f. 

3  If  vss.  19-20  be  accepted  as  original  to  the  Third  Gospel,  the  duplication  of  the 
ritual  may  perhaps  be  explained  by  the  suggestion  that  the  evangelist  regarded  the  J 
version,  vss.  15-17  (and  18  ?),  as  an  account  of,  or  a  ritual  for,  the  Agape,  and  inserted 
in  addition  the  familiar  ritual  of  the  Eucharist. 

109 


40  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

but  it  also  agrees  with  vs.  16  in  10  words,  or  48  per  cent.  This 
suggests,  since  repetition  is  a  characteristic  of  J  (cf.  Luke  23:4,  14,  22; 
23:16,  22;  and  p.  63),  that  vs.  18,  whose  similarity  to  Mark  does  not 
pass  the  limits  of  agreement  for  a  doublet,  is  really  a  " veiled  doublet" 
and  was  drawn  from  the  J  source.  Verse  190,  if  we  follow  the 
Westcott-Hort  text,  although  it  agrees  with  Mark  in  12  of  14  words, 
or  86  per  cent  (and  in  10  words,  70  per  cent,  with  I  Corinthians), 
must  be  assigned  to  J  upon  principle  i,  since  a  transposition  must  in- 
volve both  of  the  transposed  elements.  Verses  18-190  may,  however, 
have  been  affected  by  the  Markan  language. 

In  the  latter  portion  of  the  section,  vss.  21-23,  we  find  two  verses  of 
Class  II  (21,  23)  and  one  of  Class  III  (22).  The  latter  is  probably  a 
Markan  interpolation;  but  vss.  21,  23,  sufficient  in  themselves  to  relate 
the  incident,  are  probably  drawn  from  J,  since,  as  we  have  seen 
above,  the  transposition  proves  J  to  have  contained  some  account  of 
the  incident  (principle  i).  Verse  23,  however,  a  concluding  sentence, 
may  have  received  considerable  editorial  re-working. 

We  have,  then,  in  this  section  a  J  account  in  the  main,  with  a  Markan 
interpolation  in  vs.  22,  and  perhaps  a  substitution  of  Markan  for  J 
materials  in  vss.  18-190. 

2.  Introduction  to  the  account  of  the  Last  Supper  (Luke  22:8). — 
It  will  now  be  observed  that  this  J  account  must  have  had,  in  its  original 
form,  some  fuller  introduction,  to  which  reference  is  made  in  vs.  14 
in  the  phrase  ore  kykvero  17  wpa ;  and  of  this  we  must  seek  traces.  The 
preceding  paragraph,  Luke  22 : 7-13,  agrees  with  Mark  with  unusual  fidel- 
ity, however,  save  in  one  particular:  in  vs.  8  there  is  a  specific  designation 
of  the  two  disciples  by  name,  and  the  conversation  is  so  recast  that  it 
is  here  Jesus,  not,  as  in  Mark,  the  disciples,  who  introduces  the  subject 
of  preparing  the  Supper.  Neither  of  these  traits  passes  the  limits  of 
Luke's  editorial  treatment;1  but  their  coincidence  here  (principle  i), 
together  with  the  fact  that  the  verse  does  form  a  good  introduction  to 
the  account  of  the  Supper  (principle  2),  may  indicate  that  vs.  8,  with 
the  possible  exception  of  the  words  TO  Trcurxa,  rests  upon  the  J  source. 

In  Luke  22:1-6  there  are  also  two  verses  (3-4)  belonging  to  Class 
II;  but  the  entire  section  is  more  or  less  introductory  and  therefore  less 
liable  to  close  agreement  with  Mark,  and  these  verses  contain  no  new 
elements,  except  the  specification  of  Sarcu/cis  (which  is  probably  doctrinal) 

1  For  specific  designation  cf.  Luke  8:45,  where  the  context,  vs.  46,  has  a  similar 
change  in  the  dialogue.  For  the  latter  cf.  also  Luke  9:7,  and  the  compression  of 
conversations  in  Luke  9: 12-15,  46-48. 

110 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  41 

and  of  the  orpanpyol  (a  point  of  fact  which  might  have  been  added  by  any 
well-informed  pilgrim  to  Jerusalem),  and  they  do  not  stand  in  any  con- 
nection with  the  J  materials  which  precede  or  follow.  Therefore  they 
are  hardly  to  be  assigned  to  J. 

3.  The  greatness  of  responsibility  (Luke  22:24-27). — This  section 
has  a  remote  parallel  in  Mark  10:42-45;  but  vs.  2  jab  belongs  to  Class 
I,  and  the  rest  of  the  section  to  Class  II.    This  fact,  together  with  the 
transposition  (principle  i),  and  the  place  of  the  section  in  the  Farewell 
Discourse  (principle  3),  is  sufficient  to  fix  this  section  as  J  material. 
Verse  24,  however,  in  its  agreement  with  Luke  9:46,  would  appear  to 
have  received  considerable  revision. 

4.  The  reward  of  responsibility  (Luke  22:28-30). — This  section  has 
no  Markan  parallel,  though  remotely  paralleled  in  Matthew  (Matt. 
19: 28).    As  a  part  of  the  discourse  (principle  3)  it  is  to  be  assigned  to  J. 

5.  A   warning  to  Peter   (Luke    22:31-34). — In    this    section   vss. 
31-32  are  from  Class  I,  vs.  33  from  Class  II,  and  vs.  34  from  Class 
III.    As  a  part  of  the  discourse,  then,  vss.  31-32,  at  least,  are  to  be 
assigned  to  J.    Between  these  verses,  however,  and  vs.  33  there  appears 
to  be  a  break  in  the  sense :    the  former  speak  of  temptation,  the  latter 
of  physical  peril;  the  former  of  the  danger  of  all  the  disciples  (u/zwy), 
and  of  Peter  in  terms  similar  to  those  of  Matthew  16:18,  the  latter 
apparently  of  Peter's  peculiar  peril,  as  in  the  Markan  version;   the 
former  addresses  him  as  Simon,  and  vs.  34  as  Peter.     Moreover,  the 
connection  of  vss.  35-38  with  the  prophecy  of  the  peril  of  all  in  vs.  32 
is  far  more  intimate  than  that  with  the  prediction  of  Peter's  disloyalty 
in  vs.  34.    Thus  vs.  34  appears  to  have  no  inherent  connection  with  the 
J  discourse.     Verse  33,  it  is  true,  might  be  regarded  as  a  parenthesis  in 
that  discourse;  but  it  has  the  same  secondary  aspect  that  appears  in 
other  Markan  interpolations  (cf.,  for  example,  21:16).    There  remains 
no  reason  for  regarding  vs.  34  as  other  than  Markan. 

6.  The  peril  of  the  disciples    (Luke    22:35-38). — This   section   is 
Class  I  material  and  likewise  connected  with  the  Farewell  Discourse; 
it  is  therefore  (principles  i,  3)  to  be  ascribed  to  J. 

7.  Conclusion  of  the  Farewell  Discourse  (Luke  22:39). — The  trans- 
position of  the  departure  from  the  upper  room  to  a  point  after  the  warn- 
ing to  Peter  (cf .  Mark  14 : 26)  would  indicate  (principle  i)  that  vs.  39  stood 
in  J.     Moreover,  the  phrase  KCLTCL  TO  Wos  connects  with  other  indications 
of  a  rather  extended  stay  in  Jerusalem  (principle  5),  and  it  may  be 
concluded  that  the  materials  of  this  conclusion  of  the  Farewell  Discourse 
were  drawn  from  J. 

Ill 


42  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

IV.      EVENTS   CONNECTED   WITH   THE   ARREST   OF   JESUS 

1.  Jesus'  spiritual  struggle  (Luke  22:40-46). — In  this  section  there 
are  no  materials  from  Class  I  (since  vss.  43-44  are  rejected  as  a  "  Western 
interpolation"),  but  the  presence  of  additional  exact  details  (cbo-et  Ai0ou 
/3oX^,  &TTO  TTJS  Xi'Tnys)  and  the  transposition  of  the  warning  in  vs.  40  (cf. 
Mark  14:38)  seem  to  indicate  the  presence  of  J  materials.    The  trans- 
position, indeed,  is  sufficient  to  prove  the  derivation  of  vs.  40  from  J 
(principle  i),  whether  it  be  regarded  as  a  real  transposition  or  as  an 
instance  of  the  inclusion  of  the  two  members  of  a  doublet  (cf.  vs.  46) 
drawn  from  different  sources. 

In  vs.  41-46,  however,  besides  the  addition  of  exact  details  (which 
appears  as  a  J  characteristic  in  19 : 37,  and  later  in  22 : 56-60,  and  is  never 
so  positive  as  here  in  earlier  editorial  additions,  even  in  the  section  Luke 
g.  28-37),  there  is  also  a  change  in  the  form  of  Jesus'  words  of  submission 
(vs.  426)  which  seems  rather  an  independent  rendering  in  translation  than 
a  natural  editorial  improvement;  and  the  repetition  of  the  phrase  of 
warning,  in  slightly  varying  language,  marks  another  J  characteristic 
(principle  5 ;  cf .  p.  63),  which  suggests  that  both  vs.  40^  and  vs.  466  were 
drawn  from  J.  Further,  vss.  41 , 45  are  only  "  remote  parallels  "  (Class  II), 
and  the  only  close  agreement  with  Mark  is  in  the  sayings  (vss.  42,  46), 
which — the  former  for  its  sentimental  associations,  and  the  latter  for 
its  gnomic  import — must  both  have  been  widely  circulated.  Finally, 
Luke  reduces  the  number  of  Jesus'  appeals  to  the  disciples  (principle  i  ?) 
by  the  omission  of  four  verses  of  Mark.  It  seems  probable,  therefore, 
that  most  of  this  account  was  drawn  from  J;  the  reference  to  the  "cup" 
(vs.  420)  may  be  Markan;  but  the  "  cup  "  seems  to  have  been  a  familiar 
feature  of  the  Passion-story  (cf.  John  18:11;  also  Mark  10:38). 

2.  Jesus  betrayed  and  arrested   (Luke   22:47-540). — The  peculiar 
materials  of  this  section  (vss.  48,  49,  51,  53^)  demand  a  narrative  setting, 
and  hence  we  may  be  sure  (principle  2)  that  J  contained  an  account  of 
the  event.    To  Class  II,  however,  belong  only  vss.  47^,  520;  to  Class  III, 
vss.  470, 50, 526, 530$.    Conflation  may  then  be  suspected  here,  and  certain 
signs  of  it  are  to  be  found.     First,  vs.  50  is  quite  unessential  to  the  con- 
nection of  vss.  49  and  510,  indeed  slightly  interrupts  it,  and  the  specific 
detail  added  by  Luke  that  it  was  the  right  ear  is  paralleled  by  a  similar 
editorial  addition  in  Luke  6:6;  so  the  verse  may  well  enough  have  been 
drawn  from  Mark.    But  vs.  516  is  dependent  upon  vs.  50 ;  therefore,  while 
such  a  reference  to  healing  might  have  been  made  by  the  evangelist  upon 
his  own  responsibility  (cf.  4:40;  9:11),  or  he  may  even  have  been  per- 
sonally acquainted  (as  perhaps  the  fourth  evangelist  was,  cf.  John 

112 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  43 

18: 10)  with  the  subject  of  the  miracle,  yet  it  is  easier  to  believe,  since 
the  order  of  the  words  in  vs.  50  is  quite  different  from  the  Markan 
order,  that  not  only  the  healing,  but  the  stroke  that  occasioned  it,  was 
related  in  J. 

A  more  certain  sign  of  conflation  is  perhaps  to  be  found  in  the  dis- 
parity of  the  grounds  of  complaint  in  vss.  526  and  $30;  in  the  former  Jesus 
complains  because  of  the  show  of  force  made  against  him,  in  the  latter 
because  of  the  secrecy  of  his  arrest.  But  since  vs.  526  agrees  verbatim 
with  Mark,  it  must  be  ascribed  to  that  source,  while  vs.  53^  belongs  to 
Class  I  and  is  presumably  from  J.  It  is  moreover  incomplete  without 
some  definition  of  its  setting  (the  initial  avrrj  refers  backward),  and  is 
on  this  account  to  be  referred  to  J  (principle  2). 

In  vs.  5306  the  phrase  tKreiveiv  rds  x^tpas  €iri  nva  occurs,  which  is 
found  nowhere  else  in  Luke,  while  his  customaiy  locution  is  ext/SdXXeiH 
res  xcipas  (Luke  20:19;  21:12;  Acts  4:3;  5:18;  12:1;  21:27);  yet 
this  portion  of  the  verse  contains  no  elements  not  found  in  Mark,  and 
it  seems  to  connect  with  the  Markan  complaint  (vs.  526)  more  closely  than 
with  the  J  (vs.  53^).  Now  vs.  520  is  largely  editorial  and  probably  based 
upon  a  Markan  verse  (14:436)  previously  omitted,  while  the  arpar^yol  TOV 
Upov  are  mentioned  elsewhere  (Luke  22:4)  in  an  editorial  expansion  of 
Mark.  But  if  these  clauses  are  ascribed  to  the  Markan  source,  vs.  53^ 
is  brought  into  connection  with  vs.  51;  and  it  becomes  apparent  that 
this  connection  gives  it  a  real  significance  as  the  reason  given  for  the 
acquiescence  expressed  in  vs.  510:  " Permit  even  this;  for  this  is  their 
hour — so  it  is  destined. "  But  this  remains  hypothetical;  and  the  con- 
nection would  require  either  that  the  explanatory  clause  (vs.  53*;)  should 
stand  between  the  two  sentences  of  vs.  51  with  a  change  of  the  pronoun 
to  the  third  person  (which  is  indeed  just  possible),  or  have  had  some 
other  indication  of  a  change  in  the  persons  addressed.  But  if  the  latter 
be  sought  we  are  again  thrown  back  upon  vss.  520,  5306. 

Verse  470  has  many  agreements  with  Mark,  but  differs  largely  in 
order  of  words;  and  since  it  is  necessary  as  introducing  vss.  476-48,  the 
substance  of  it,  at  least,  must  have  stood  in  J.  Verse  540  may  be  drawn 
from  the  Markan  document,  though  the  true  parallel  to  Mark  14:530  is 
rather  in  vs.  666;  but  the  clumsy  repetition  of  yyayov,  eiarjyayov  is 
scarcely  to  be  ascribed  to  the  third  evangelist,  and  J  can  hardly  have 
wanted  some  mention  of  the  act  of  arrest  (principle  2).  The  trans- 
position of  the  arrest,  too  (principle  i),  from  the  point  where  it  is  noted 
by  Mark  may  have  significance;  and  the  verse  may  be  assumed  to 
represent  elements  from  J.  We  have  then  in  this  section  a  J  account 

113 


44  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC  STUDIES 

including  substantially  vss.   47~49,  5™,  53C>  and  probably  vss.  50, 
516,  s^ab. 

3.  Peter's  denials  (Luke  22:546-62). — In  this  section  again  there 
are  no  materials  of  Class  I;   but  vss.  55-56,  58-600,  6ia  belong  to 
Class  II,  and  there  are  many  non-Markan  details:    the  two  precise 
statements  of  the  interval  (/ACTO,  |8paxi>,  Siaordo-Tjs  cixret  upas  /"<«)>  the 
change  in  the  second  and  third  speakers  designated,  and  the  additional 
detail  in  vs.  61  that  a  glance  from  Jesus  recalled  Peter's  courage.    This 
wealth  of  additional  detail,  more  precise  than  is  usually  to  be  found  in 
Lukan  editorial  revision  (cf.  pp.  62  f.),  together  with  the  general  remote- 
ness of  the  agreement  (principle  6),  and  above  all  the  transposition  of  the 
entire  section  (principle  i),  indicates  that  we  are  here  dealing,  at  least  in 
part,  with  materials  from  J.    If  so,  there  must  be  included  in  these,  by 
reason  of  the  two  definitions  of  the  intervals,  the  three  denials,  vss. 
56-600;  introductory  to  these  vs.  55  (but  not  546,  which  agrees  closely 
with  Mark  and  is  unnecessary  to  the  introduction);  and  as  a  con- 
clusion at  least  vs.  6ia  and  perhaps  even  vs.  6ib — xal  vTrepvrjcrOii  6  H.  TOV 
pharos   TOV  Kvpiov — though  vs.   62  will  form  a  sufficient  conclusion. 
Verses  6o&,  6ic  are  not  to  be  ascribed  to  J,  however;  for  the  previous 
mention  of  the  cock  (vs.  34)  has  been  excluded  from  that  source  (prin- 
ciple 5),  and  since  they  belong  to  Class  III  the  Markan  source  is 
sufficient  to  account  for  them. 

4.  Jesus  in  the  hands  of  the  police  (Luke  22:63-65). — This  section 
also  is  transposed  with  reference  to  both  the  Denials  of  Peter  and  the 
Trial  of  Jesus,  and  hence  (principle  i)  it  must  have  stood,  in  part  at 
least,  hi  J.    But  it  contains  no  materials  closely  resembling  Mark,  and  its 
general  agreement  is  but  18  per  cent;  so  it  may  be  ascribed  entire  to  J. 

V.      THE   TRIAL   OF  JESUS 

As  regards  the  trial  of  Jesus  the  account  of  Luke  differs  very  consid- 
erably from  that  of  Mark;  for  the  trial  by  the  Jewish  authorities  is 
removed  from  the  night  to  the  morning  following,  and  to  the  trial  by 
Pilate,  of  which  a  much  fuller  account  is  given,  is  added  the  examination 
of  Jesus  by  Herod.  With  the  respective  historical  value  of  the  two  ver- 
sions we  are  not  now  concerned;  it  must  only  be  remarked  that  these 
divergences  are  so  great  that  it  is  inconceivable  that  Luke  did  not  have 
some  other  authority  for  the  correction  of  the  Markan  account,  and  at 
nearly  every  point  of  the  legal  process. 

i.  Examination  of  Jesus  by  the  Jewish  authorities  (Luke  22:66-71). 
— This  event  the  third  evangelist  definitely  transfers  from  the  night  to 

114 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  45 

the  following  morning,  and  by  omission  of  the  verdict  (cf .  Mark  14 : 64) 
reduces  it  from  the  dignity  of  a  trial  to  the  level  of  a  mere  grand-jury 
process  for  preparing  the  indictment.1  He  omits,  further,  all  reference 
to  the  search  for  testimony  and  the  false  evidence  offered  (Mark  14:55- 
60).  In  addition,  there  is  evidence  here  of  conflation;  for  the  bold  claim 
of  vs.  69,  not  the  noncommittal  and  cynical  response  of  vs.  70,*  is  the 
real  occasion  for  the  verdict  of  vs.  71. 

The  Class  I  materials  are  vss.  676-68;  Class  II,  vs.  70.  Further  dis- 
agreement with  Mark  appears,  however,  in  the  recasting  and  expansion 
of  the  dialogue  in  a  manner  unexampled  outside  of  the  Passion-narrative, 
especially  in  the  repetition  of  the  direct  interrogation,  but  also  in  the 
transposition  of  so  many  details  that  the  nearest  Markan  parallels 
run  in  the  order  Mark  14:536,  530,  6ib,  (610),  626,  616,  620,  63.  It  is 
evident,  then,  that  much  of  the  section  must  be  drawn  from  J.  Verses 
69  and  71,  however,  hang  together,  as  do  vss.  67-68  and  70;  hence 
vss.  69,  71  must  be  regarded  as  Markan  interpolations  into  the  J 
account.  Verse  666  is  quite  secondary,  in  the  indefinite  reference  to 
"their  sanhedrin,"  and  probably  Markan;  but  vs.  66a  contains  a  refer- 
ence, not  found  in  Mark,  to  the  irptafivrkpiov  TOV  \aov,  and  may  be  the 
wanting  introduction  to  the  J  account.  Further  conclusion  of  the 
account  after  vs.  70  is  not  needed  in  view  of  23:1-2.  Vexed  at  Jesus' 
noncommittal  and  defiant  attitude,  the  court  adjourns  in  disgust, 
resolved  to  press  old  charges  against  him  before  the  governor. 

2.  Jesus  arraigned  before  Pilate  and  Herod  (Luke  23:1-16). — In 
this  section  vss.  4-15  relate  incidents  entirely  unknown  to  Mark,  and 
only  vs.  3  shows  any  appreciable  agreement  with  the  Second  Gospel,  but 
this  is  very  close.  Verses  1-2  are  but  remotely  parallel  to  Mark  (Class 
II)  and,  since  they  would  be  necessary  to  any  account  of  the  trial 
(principle  2)  and  vs.  2  is  transposed  (principle  i),  may  be  ascribed  to  J. 
Verse  3  has  84  per  cent  of  agreement  with  Mark,  and  two  explanations 
of  it  are  possible:  either  the  J  account  here  agreed  closely  with  the 
Markan  (which  is  hardly  likely),  or  Luke  chose  to  substitute  this  verse 
for  the  fuller  account  which  Pilate's  reply  in  vs.  4  seems  to  indicate  as 
having  stood  in  J.  For  the  rest  of  the  section,  while  there  are  in  every 

1  Cf.  R.  W.  Husband,  The  Prosecution  of  Jesus,  pp.  183  f.,  210  ff. 

2  Verse  706  is  often  interpreted  as  a  "round  affirmation"  (cf.  Bernhard  Weiss, 
op.  tit.,  p.  223;  Feine,  Eine  vorkanonische  Ueberlieferung  des  Lukas  [1891],  p.  68, 
etc.) ;  but  in  view  of  the  fact  that  in  point  of  want  of  agreement  with  Mark  it  is 
connected  with  vss.  67-68,  it  is  rather  to  be  interpreted  as  quite  noncommittal,  or 
even  (with  Plummer,  op.  cit.,  p.  519)  as  interrogative. 

115 


46  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

verse  details  paralleled  in  Mark  or  in  other  portions  of  Luke  in  different 
connections,  it  is  inconceivable  that  the  evangelist  should  suddenly  have 
altered  his  editorial  method  (see  pp.  15-17)  to  the  extent  of  building  up 
this  account  out  of  such  scattered  hints;  and  their  very  transposition 
to  this  point  (principle  i),  as  well  as  the  originality  of  the  narrative  into 
which  they  are  fitted,  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  we  are  here  dealing 
with  a  J  narrative. 

3.  Jesus  condemned  by  the  governor  (Luke  23:18-25). — The  J 
account  has  now  left  us  with  the  picture  of  the  procurator  protesting  that 
Jesus  is  guiltless;  but  it  passes  on  to  his  crucifixion,  and  must  perforce 
have  had  some  account  of  how  the  two  statements  are  reconciled.  We 
may  then  expect  J  materials  in  this  section,  which,  although  parallel 
to  Mark  in  its  general  outline,  agrees  with  the  Second  Gospel  in  only 
3 1  words  out  of  104,  or  30  per  cent.  The  demands  of  the  narrative  would 
indeed  be  satisfied  by  vss.  23-24,  or  even  by  vs.  23  alone.  But  vs.  22cd 
contains  two  clauses  (ov8&  (UTIOV  evpov,  iraidevaas  a7roXu<7o>)  repeated  from 
earlier  J  sections  (principle  5),  and  these  require  (principle  2)  that  at 
least  a  part  of  the  colloquy  preceding  be  ascribed  to  J;  but  since  the 
only  agreement  of  the  passage  with  Mark  in  significant  words  is  in 
vs.  22b  (TL  yap  KOLKOV  tirolrjvev) ,  it  is  likely  that  the  whole  passage  is 
derived  from  J,  with  this  single  interpolation  from  Mark. 

The  references  to  Barabbas  (vss.  18-19,  250)  are  not,  to  be  sure,  at  all 
essential  to  the  narrative,  and  might  easily  be  supplied  from  Mark 
(even  the  added  detail  in  vs.  ig—^evofjLevrjv  ev  rrj  TroXet — does  not  pass  the 
limits  of  editorial  inference) ;  but  the  facts  that  most  of  the  passage  is 
drawn  from  J  (principle  4),  and  that  here  it  is  the  crowds,  not  the 
governor,  who  introduce  the  bandit's  name  (principle  i),  as  well  as  the 
extreme  want  of  agreement  in  language  (principle  6)  in  a  detail  that 
could  not  have  stood  alone,  furnish  sufficient  ground  for  ascribing  this 
detail  of  the  narrative  also  to  J. 

In  vss.  23-25  there  is  a  certain  amount  of  redundancy,  and  the  con- 
demnation of  Jesus  is  three  times  implied:  KCLT'HTXVOV  at  0coi>at  CLVT&V,  II. 
tirtKpivev  yevevdai  TO  alrrj^a  O.VT&V,  TOP  'Irjffovv  TraptduKtv  r<3  BeKrjuaTL  CLVT&V. 
Verse  24,  indeed,  is  sufficient  conclusion  for  the  section,  and  vs.  25  is 
quite  parallel  to  Mark  in  thought  and  in  order  of  expressions,  if  not  in 
language,  and  may  therefore  be  Markan.  Yet  the  second  of  these  repe- 
titions adds  definiteness  to  the  first  statement,  and  the  third  is  needed 
to  complete  the  antithesis  of  vs.  25,  while  the  repetitiousness  is  no  more 
than  is  natural  to  J  (principle  5,  cf.  p.  63).  This  entire  section,  there- 
fore, with  the  exception  of  one  phrase,  vs.  226,  may  be  ascribed  to  J. 

116 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  47 

VI.      JESUS'   DEATH  AND  BURIAL 

1.  The  route  to  execution  (Luke  22:26-32). — Luke  here  omits  the 
Markan  account  of  the  mocking  of  Jesus  (Mark  15:16-20),  but  inserts 
a  further  prediction  relative  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (23:27-31) 
entirely  without  parallel  in  Mark  (Class  I),  which,  by  reason  of  the  ref- 
erence A«7  K\aL€T€  €TT'  ejue,  must  be  fixed  in  some  such  setting  as  this  and 
therefore  ascribed  (principle  2)  to  J.     Verse  26,  however,  is  a  detail  not 
essential  to  the  narrative,  and  since  it  is  a  close  parallel  to  Mark  (Class 
III)  there  is  no  reason  for  supposing  it  had  any  other  source,  while 
its  importance  is  too  slight  to  suppose  that  it  was  transmitted  in  many 
of  the  traditions.     Verse  32  is  the  necessary  introduction  to  vss.  39-43, 
and  a  Class  II  passage,  and  therefore  (principles  1,2)  assignable  to  J. 

2.  The  crucifixio-n  (Luke  23:33-34). — The  crucifixion  of  Jesus  must 
inherently,  and  that  of  the  malefactors  on  grounds  of  narrative  con- 
tinuity, have  stood  in  the  J  narrative;   but  it  is  equally  likely  that 
the  relation  of  these  events  can  hardly  have  been  stated  so  differently 
from  the  Markan  version  as  to  appear  altogether  original.     Therefore, 
since    vs.    330,    although  of  Class  III  agreement,  shows  considerable 
divergence  in  the  form  of  the  sentence  as  well  as  in  the  omission  of  the 
detail  of  Jesus'  refusal  of  the  drugged  wine  (Mark  15:23),  it  may  be 
supposed  to  represent  the  J  version.     The  transposition  of  vs.  336 
(principle  i),  as  well  as  its  necessary  connection  with  vss.  32  and  39 
(principle  2),  are  sufficient  grounds  for  ascribing  it  also  to  J,  aside  from 
its  want  of  agreement  with  Mark.    Verse  340  is  rejected  by  Westcott 
and  Hort  as  a  "Western  interpolation."     Verse  346  is  a  secondary 
detail  merely,  not  liable  to  frequent  transmission,  and  its  appending 
after  the  reference  to  the  malefactors  creates  a  want  of  connection  which 
may  indicate  conflation;   it  may  be  accounted  Markan,  therefore. 

3.  Jesus  ridiculed  on  the  cross  (Luke  23:35-43). — In  this  section 
there  are  two  blocks  of  Class  I  materials:    an  introductory  hint  (vs. 
350),  and  the  incident  of  the  penitent  thief   (vss.  39-43),   a  hint  of 
which  however,  is  also  given  in  Mark  (15 : 32^).    As  respects  verbal  agree- 
ment with  Mark,  vss.  35^-37  belong  entirely  to  Class  II,  and  their  details 
are  so  rearranged  that  the  order  of  the  Markan  parallels  would  stand: 
Mark  15:31,  320,  36,  326,  30.     Further,  Luke  gives  the  whole  picture 
more  of  a  historical  color,  since  the  crowds  are  kept  away  from  the 
cross  (a  precaution  the  Romans  must  always  have  had  to  observe  in 
Judea)  and  only  the  Jewish  authorities  and  the  Roman  guard  come  into 
contact  with  Jesus,  while  the  words  attributed  to  each  are  appropriate 
to  the  part.    All  this  hardly  passes  the  limits  of  editorial  treatment 

117 


48  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

if  this  were  Luke's  editorial  method;  but  it  is  not  (cf .  pp.  19-20),  and  there- 
fore the  transpositions  and  the  different  color  of  the  narrative  (principle 
i),  with  the  want  of  agreement,  indicate  a  derivation  of  the  paragraph 
from  J.  Moreover  (principle  2),  the  taunts  of  the  priests  and  the  soldiery 
are  the  most  reasonable  occasion  of  the  taunt  of  the  brigand  (vs.  39), 
who  must  have  been  in  ignorance  up  to  this  point  of  the  charges  against 
Jesus.  Verse  38  is  merely  a  secondary  detail,  and  since  it  belongs  to 
Class  III  is  most  probably  Markan.  Its  transposition  to  this,  a  less 
suitable  position,  does  not  affect  the  narrative,  and  may  be  ascribed 
to  accident — interpolation  as  an  afterthought  when  the  evangelist  ran 
his  eye  over  the  Markan  document  to  see  if  he  had  missed  anything  of 
significance.  Possibly  it  served,  in  the  evangelist's  thought,  to  explain 
the  taunts  of  the  soldiers  (vs.  37),  though  such  postponement  of  details  is 
not  usually  his  custom  (see  p.  17).  This  section  then  is  derived  from  J, 
with  a  Markan  interpolation  in  vs.  38. 

4.  Circumstances  of  Jesus'  death  (Luke  23:44-49). — In  this  section 
there  are  Class  I  materials  (vss.  46,  48-490)  sufficient  to  fix  its  incorpo- 
ration in  J;  but  there  are  also  Class  III  materials  in  vss.  44-45, 47,  496. 
It  seems  that  here  the  amount  of  agreement  corresponds  pretty  well  with 
the  other  indications  of  source.  Verses  46,  48  are  peculiar  details  which 
must  have  been  drawn  from  a  non-Markan  source  (principle  2);  and 
the  Scripture  reminiscence  of  vs.  490  should,  with  these,  also  be  assigned 
to  J  (principle  4),  since  in  his  Markan  materials  Luke  nowhere  adds 
editorially  any  reference  to  the  Old  Testament.  The  secondary  details 
of  vss.  44-45,  however,  would  hardly  have  been  widely  transmitted  in 
identical  language,  and  the  explanation  TOV  17X101;  kK^dirovros  is  in  the 
manner  of  the  evangelist,1  while  even  the  transposition  of  vs.  456,  which 
does  not  affect  the  course  of  the  narrative,  may  be  editorial;  these 
verses,  then,  may  easily  have  been  derived  from  Mark,  as  may  vs.  49^, 
which  closely  resembles  Mark,  and  is,  to  a  certain  extent,  a  doublet  of  vs. 
490.  Another  secondary  detail,  vs.  47,  although  a  "close  parallel"  to 
Mark,  and  therefore  perhaps  derived  from  that  source  with  editorial 
revision,  is  yet  quite  differently  put,  and  shows  the  verisimilitude  char- 
acteristic of  vss.  35-37  above  (principle  5),  while  the  agreement  with  Mark 
is  but  44  per  cent  and  consists  mainly  in  unimportant  words ;  it  may,  there- 
fore, be  ascribed  with  large  reservations  to  J.  Then  in  this  section,  vss. 
46,  47,  48-490  are  to  be  ascribed  to  J,  and  vss.  44-45,  496  are  Markan. 

xlt  may  even  be  due  to  the  misunderstanding  of  Jesus'  cry  in  Mark  (15:34-35); 
cf.  E.  A.  Abbott  in  Class.  Rev.  (December,  1893),  p.  443  (quoted  in  Plummer,  op.  cit., 
P-  545);  an(l  From  Letter  to  Spirit  (Diatessarica,  Part  III),  p.  401,  §  1060. 

118 


49 

5.  The   entombment    (Luke    23:50-54). — This    section    presents    a 
peculiar  problem;    some  description  of  the  burial  of  Jesus  must  be 
supposed  to  have  stood  in  J;    but  in  the  Lukan  account  the  central 
details  of  the  story  are  told  in  language  closely  resembling  that  of  Mark, 
although  with  a  few  additional  details.    A  sign  of  conflation,  however, 
is  to  be  found  in  the  appending  of  a  statement  as  to  the  date,  as  an  after- 
thought at  the  close,  contrary  to  Luke's  usual  habit  (see  p.  17).    This 
detail  is  non-Markan  in  language,  and  its  position  suggests  that  it  was 
added  from  another  source  when  the  Markan  account  had  been  con- 
cluded.   It  must,  for  these  several  reasons,  be  concluded  that  the  core 
of  the  incident,  vss.  52-536,  is  here  Markan.    The  evangelist's  reason 
for  here  abandoning  the  source  which  has  furnished  the  outline  of  his 
narrative  for  nearly  two  chapters  previous  is  not  clear. 

However,  Luke  can  hardly  have  been  following  the  Markan  source 
when  he  commenced  his  account  of  this  incident,  else  he  would,  with 
Mark  (15:42),  have  inserted  the  indication  of  the  date  at  the  head  of 
his  relation,  instead  of  tacking  it  on  at  the  foot.  Hence  we  may  suppose 
that  vss.  50-5  la  were  derived  from  J  (principle  6),  and  that  after  copying 
these  Luke  turned  to  his  Markan  source  for  the  designation  of  Joseph  (ebrd 
'Apinadalas)  and  followed  it  through  vs.  536,  omitting  the  account  of 
Joseph's  visit  to  Pilate  as  superfluous,  and  that  then  he  returned  to  J  for 
the  statement  that  the  tomb  was  unoccupied  (principle  6),  and  appended 
a  statement  of  the  date  at  the  point  where  he  found  it  in  J  (this  would 
explain  the  transposition,  principle  i). 

To  resume,  while  certainty  of  attribution  is  not  possible  hi  this 
passage,  the  addition  of  important  details  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
close  agreements  with  Mark  on  the  other,  suggest  that  the  materials 
were  drawn  from  two  sources:  vss.  51^-536  from  the  Markan,  and  vss. 
50-510,  53*-54  from  J.1 

6.  The  ministration  of  the  women  (Luke  23:55 — 24:  i). — These  three 
transitional   verses,   although   disjoined   in   Mark,    are   brought   into 
close  connection  by  Luke.     Since  they  present  peculiar  problems  they 
may  be  considered  in  a  section  apart.     It  will  first  be  noted  that  vss. 
55-56  belong  to  Class  II  in  all  their  parts,  while  24:1  is  throughout 
closely  parallel  to  Mark  (Class  III),  both  in  language  (60  per  cent  of 
agreement)  and  in  order,  and  must  undoubtedly,  therefore,  be  derived 
from  the  Markan  source.     Verses  55-56,  moreover,  contain  no  details 

1  It  is,  however,  possible  that  vss.  510,  53C  are  bits  of  fact  picked  up  at  random  by 
the  evangelist,  and  vss.  50,  54  are  Markan  in  origin;  yet  this  fails  to  explain  the 
present  location  of  vs.  54. 

119 


50  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

not  satisfied  by  Mark,  and  to  this  extent  the  section  would  appear  to 
have  been  drawn  entire  from  the  Markan  source. 

There  are  difficulties,  however,  with  this  view.  First  of  these  is  the 
transposition  of  the  list  of  the  women  to  vs.  10  of  Luke ;  for  had  the  evan- 
gelist intended  to  give  such  a  list  he  could  hardly,  if  following  the  Markan 
account,  have  omitted  it,  even  accidentally,  at  this  point  in  the  introduc- 
tion of  his  account  (where  Mark  gives  it  twice) ,  only  to  append  it  later.  A 
second  difficulty  is  the  discrepancy  regarding  the  purchase  of  the  spices. 
Mark  implies  (16:1)  that  the  purchase  was  made  on  Saturday  evening; 
but  Luke  speaks  of  the  women's  preparation  on  Friday  afternoon  (vs.  $6a) 
and  expressly  states  that  on  the  Sabbath  they  rested  (vs.  566).  This  dis- 
crepancy is  slight,  however,  and  may  be  due  simply  to  editorial  care- 
lessness. If  the  transposition  too  is  due  to  the  derivation  of  the  list  of 
the  women  from  a  non-Markan  source,  as  is  the  case  with  vs.  54  above, 
there  remains  no  pressing  reason  for  supposing  that  the  entire  section 
may  not  have  been  derived  from  the  Markan  source,  save  only  the  remark- 
able omission  of  the  list  at  the  commencement  of  the  account.  This  is, 
however,  sufficient  ground  for  the  supposition  that  the  substance  of  this 
section  was  drawn  from  J,  but  that  the  language  of  24:  i  has  been  modi- 
fied by  the  influence  of  the  Markan  parallel. 

7.  The  empty  tomb  (Luke  24:2-11). — This  incident  centers  rather 
about  the  fact  of  Jesus'  burial  than  about  the  risen  Lord  and  is  connected 
by  the  evangelist  closely  to  the  preceding  sections. 

Here  there  are  numerous  signs  of  non-Markan  source.  First,  the 
agreement  with  Mark  in  vss.  2-9  is  but  14  words  out  of  85,  or  17  per 
cent.  Secondly,  there  are  many  divergences  in  the  account:  Luke 
tells  of  two  angels  instead  of  one,  of  the  women  having  previously  noted 
the  empty  tomb,  transforms  a  promise  of  reunion  in  Galilee  to  a  promise 
in  Galilee  of  reunion,  and  informs  us,  in  express  contradiction  of  Mark, 
that  the  women  did  tell  the  disciples  what  they  had  seen.  Thirdly, 
vss.  9,  lob  recount  how  the  women  told  the  disciples,  and  appear  to  be  a 
doublet  of  the  same  detail  drawn  from  two  different  sources,  while 
the  position  of  vs.  loa  as  a  tacked-on  appendix  seems  a  further  sign  of 
conflation,  or  at  least  of  the  use  of  a  non-Markan  source. 

It  seems,  therefore,  that  vss.  2-9  should  be  ascribed  wholly  to  J,  on  the 
ground  of  want  of  agreement  with  Mark,  of  discrepancy  with  the 
Markan  story  (principle  i),  and  because  J  would  naturally  have  contained 
some  resurrection  narrative  (principle  2).  Their  only  agreement  in  lan- 
guage with  Mark,  the  phrase  OVK  Unv  &de  dXXd  fakpSri  in  vs.  6,  is  rejected 
by  Westcott  and  Hort  as  a  "Western  non-interpolation." 

120 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  51 

The  list  of  the  women  (vs.  100)  is  parallel  (Class  III)  to  Mark;  but  it 
differs  somewhat  in  content.1  Moreover,  the  transposition  of  this  detail 
from  the  more  suitable  Markan  location  where  Luke  must  have  found 
it  if  he  derived  it  from  that  source  is  especially  difficult  (see  p.  17). 
Therefore,  after  the  analogy  of  similar  appendixes  (cf.  Luke  23:  54;  also 
23  :  10,32,  35),  it  may  be  assigned  (principle  5)  to  J.  But  vs.  lob  is  a  doublet 
of  vs.  9  and  therefore  hardly  to  be  ascribed  to  the  same  source;  it  may 
well  have  been  drawn  from  the  Markan  document.2  Verse  n  probably 
belongs  with  the  contiguous  (Markan)  material  (principle  4),  but  may  be 
editorial  (cf.  Luke  9:45;  18:34),  or  even  derived  from  J. 

The  section,  then,  is  a  unit  from  J  (vss.  2-100)  with  Markan  appendix 
(vss.  106-1  1)  .  Verse  1  2  is  rejected  by  Westcott  and  Hort  as  a  "  Western 
non-interpolation.  "  This  J  account  must  have  had  some  introduction, 
and  this  lends  further  probability  to  the  theory  that  J  materials  are 
represented  in  the  transitional  paragraph  preceding  (23:55  —  24:1). 

VH.      THE  RESURRECTION  APPEARANCES 

It  has  already  been  remarked  that  in  the  concluding  section  of  the 
Passion-narrative,  Luke  24:13-53,  the  parallel  portion  of  Mark  is  lost; 
but  it  is  extremely  doubtful  whether  any  of  these  materials  were  in  any 
case  derived  from  the  Markan  source;  for,  first,  there  are  no  accounts 
in  which  Matthew  and  Luke  agree,  and,  secondly,  the  Lucan  account 
deals  with  appearances  of  Jesus  at  Jerusalem,  while  the  Markan  seems 


1  The  mention  of  'iwdra  might,  however,  be  an  early  scribal,  or  even  an  editorial, 
addition  from  Luke  8:3  (cf.  the  substitution  of  'loitfas  'laKw/Sou  hi  the  list  of  the  Twelve, 
6:  16).    The  SaXw/^  of  Mark  (16:  i),  omitted  hi  Mark  15  :  47  and  hi  Matt.  28:  i,  may  be 
a  similar  textual  corruption. 

2  The  Markan  parallel  is  here  lost,  except  as  it  may  be  reproduced,  like  the  pre- 
ceding Markan  section,  in  Matthew.    It  seems  not  improbable  that  Matt.  28:9-10 
were  drawn  from  the  lost  conclusion,  since  an  injunction  from  Jesus  himself  is  most 
appropriate  to  the  picture  of  timidity  with  which  Mark  now  closes,  and  these  verses 
would  connect  without  a  break  with  the  last  words  of  Mark.    But,  with  such  a  re- 
assurance, the  incredulity  of  the  women  is  broken  down,  and  they  do  at  last  "run 
and  tell  the  disciples,"  whence  the  statements  of  Matthew  (28:86)  and  of  Luke 
(vs.  1  06)  .    As  far  as  we  may  infer,  therefore,  from  the  parallel  accounts  ,it  would  appear 
that  the  view  of  Goodspeed  (cf.  Am.  Jour.  TheoL,  DC  [1905],  484-90)  that  the  lost 
conclusion  of  Mark  is  most  nearly  reproduced  in  the  conclusion  of  the  First  Gospel  (ex- 
cept, of  course,  vss.  11-15)  is  more  probable  than  the  hypothesis  of  Rohrbach  (Schluss 
des  Markusevangdiums),  Harnack  (Text,  und  Unters.,  EX  [1893],  2,  32  f  .),  and  others  that 
was  of  close  kin  to  the  resurrection  appearance  hi  John,  chap.  21,  and  the  Gospel  of 
Peter.    If  this  be  the  case,  we  may  find  hi  Luke  also  materials  that  may  have  been 
drawn  from  the  Markan  source. 

121 


52  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC  STUDIES 

to  demand  Galilean  appearances  (Mark  14:28;  16:7;  and  cf.  Matt. 
28: 16).  It  remains  to  inquire  what  indications  of  sources  are  discover- 
able, and  whether  reasons  can  be  advanced  for  assigning  these  narra- 
tives to  J.  One  such  is  at  once  apparent:  the  strong  presumption  that 
no  Passion-gospel  could  have  omitted  some  account  of  the  resurrection 
and  the  resurrection  appearances;  yet  it  might  not  have  included  all 
of  this  section  of  the  Third  Gospel.  It  appears  capable  of  proof,  how- 
ever, that  a  number  of  these  narratives  must  have  been  derived  from 
some  definite  source. 

1.  The  ascension  (Luke  24:50-53). — We  may  begin  with  one  of 
the  strongest  instances  and  work  backward.    There  is  a  doublet  of  this 
account  recorded  by  the  same  author  in  Acts  1:9-14;   but  the  two 
accounts  disagree  in  several  particulars.     The  scene  is  slightly  dif- 
ferent, opposite  Bethany  in  the  Gospel  (vs.  50),  a  Sabbath-day's  jour- 
ney out  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  in  Acts  (vs.  12);  in  the  Gospel  Jesus 
"parts  from"  his  disciples  (vs.  51),  in  the  Acts  he  is  borne  in  a  cloud  to 
heaven  (vss.  9-100,  n) ;  in  the  Gospel  they  frequent  the  Temple  (vs.  53), 
in  the  Acts,  the  upper  room  (vs.  13).    This  amount  of  divergence,  which 
is  never  quite  contradiction,  however,  is  yet  sufficient  to  prove  that  the 
evangelist  had  no  stereotyped  memoriter  version  of  his  own  which  he 
simply  set  down  in  one  or  the  other  instance  (else  he  could  hardly  have 
accepted  the  divergent  account),  but  that,  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other, 
he  was  depending  upon  some  narrative  source.     But  since  this  could 
hardly  be  oral  (principle  6),  we  can  most  easily  suppose  that  it  was  J. 

2.  The  great  commission  (Luke  24:44-49). — Here  the  case  is  sim- 
ilar.   The  account  in  Acts  (1:3-8)  is  in  few  respects  similar  to  that  of 
the  Gospel;  the  time  is  different,  in  the  Gospel  (vss.  13,  33,  36)  it  seems 
to  be  upon  the  day  of  the  resurrection,  in  the  Acts  it  is  forty  days  later 
(vs.  3);  in  the  Gospel  the  "promise  of  the  Father"  is  given  (vs.  49),  in 
the  Acts  it  is  to  be  awaited  (vs.  4) ;   in  the  Gospel  Jesus'  discourse  is 
concerned  with  the  interpretation  of  his  Passion  (vss.  44-46),  in  the  Acts, 
with  the  affairs  of  the  Kingdom  (vs.  3,  cf.  vs.  6).     Almost  the  only  points 
of  agreement  are  the  promise  of  spiritual  power  (Luke  24:49;    Acts 
1:80)  and  the  commission  as  "witnesses"  (Luke  24:48;    Acts  1:86). 
Therefore,  as  in  the  closing  section  of  the  Gospel,  it  appears  that  these 
materials  may  be  ascribed  (principle  6)  to  J. 

3.  Jesus'  appearance  to  the  disciples  (Luke  24:36-43). — The  two 
sections  already  discussed  and  ascribed  to  J  require,  however,  some 
account  of  the  appearance  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples  as  a  setting,  and  this 
need  is  met  by  the  present  section,  which  should  therefore  (principle  2) 

122 


53 

be  ascribed  to  the  same  source.  As  a  further  indication  that  we  have  to 
do  still  with  the  Passion-source  of  previous  chapters,  it  should  be  noted 
that  the  connection  of  these  three  sections  gives  us  already  a  "resur- 
rection Gospel"  of  some  eighteen  verses,  that  is,  a  quite  considerable 
source,  which  economy  of  hypothesis  would  lead  us  to  connect  with  the 
J  source  preceding. 

4.  Jesus1  appearance  to  two  obscure  disciples  (Luke  24:13-35). — 
It  is  remarkable  that  this  section,  which  deals  with  the  appearance 
of  Jesus  to  two  otherwise  unknown  disciples,  should  be  the  longest  single 
narrative  in  the  entire  Gospel,  while  the  appearance  to  Peter  is  passed 
over  in  a  single  indirect  reference  (vs.  34) ;  and  we  are  led  to  inquire  if 
there  is  here  any  purpose  beyond  the  evangelist's  usual  narrative  inter- 
est. He  has  once  stated  (Luke  1:4)  his  ulterior  motive,  and  here,  if 
ever,  is  the  place  for  him  to  reveal  his  didactic  aim1  and  to  press  home  his 
message  regarding  Jesus,  as  near  the  close  of  his  work  as  the  finality  of 
the  Ascension  will  allow.  And  this  narrative  has  many  of  the  ele- 
ments of  a  general  survey  of  the  gospel  message:  there  is  first  the 
summary  of  Jesus'  career  (vss.  19-20) ;  second,  an  estimate  of  the  impres- 
sion he  had  made  (vs.  21);  third,  a  presentation  of  the  evidence  for  the 
resurrection  (vss.  22-24);  fourth,  an  indication  of  the  proofs  of  his  mes- 
siahship  (vss.  25-27) ;  fifth,  a  typification  of  the  communion  of  his  Spirit 
with  the  believer,  especially  in  the  rite  of  the  Eucharist  (vss.  29-30) ;  and 
finally,  in  the  heart  inflamed,  a  hint  of  the  endowment  of  the  believer 
with  spiritual  power  (vs.  32).  This  outline  has  almost  the  appearance 
of  an  early  Christian  missionary  sermon;2  and  this  seems  its  function 
here — it  is  the  homiletic  restatement  of  the  gospel  narrative,  just  such 
as  we  might  expect  from  one  who  had  been  an  evangelizer  and  co-worker 
with  Paul.* 

But  is  it  Pauline,  or  such  a  statement  as  might  be  expected  from  one 
of  Paul's  missionary  staff  ?  It  contains,  indeed,  two  elements  strongly 
emphasized  by  Paul — mystical  communion  and  spiritual  endowment — 
and  it  closely  resembles  the  address  attributed  by  the  same  author  to 
Paul  in  Acts  13:17-41;  but  certain  of  the  most  central  of  the  Pauline 
doctrines,  such  as  justification  through  Christ  (which  is  comprehended 
in  the  address  at  Pisidian  Antioch),  are  quite  omitted.4  Harnack, 

1  Cf.  Hawkins  in  Ox.  Stud.,  pp.  90-94. 

*Cf.  Acts  2:22-35;  3:13-15,  18,  21-24;  13:23-41,  etc.  (But  these  too  are 
Lukan.) 

3  Cf.  Acts  16:13;  €01.4:14;  Philem.  24;  II  Tim.  4:11. 

*  This  element  does,  however,  appear  later  in  the  same  chapter  (vs.  47). 

123 


54  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

however,  well  points  out1  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  can 
hardly  have  been  comprehended  in  all  its  depth  by  the  Pauline  churches, 
or  even  by  all  of  Paul's  co-workers,  and  that  there  is  just  this  difference 
between  the  theology  of  the  epistles  and  that  of  the  Third  Gospel  and 
Acts.  So  it  would  seem  that,  in  this  narrative,  the  evangelist  himself  is 
endeavoring,  as  he  has  nowhere  else  in  his  Gospel,  though  probably  now 
on  the  basis  of  some  brief  oral  tradition,  to  press  home  the  application  of 
his  story,  much  as  the  Fourth  Evangelist  did  in  a  balder  and  less  literary 
fashion  when  he  wrote,  "  These  are  written  that  ye  may  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  and  that  believing  ye  may  have  life  in  his  name.  "a 

The  conclusion  will  then  here  be,  that,  of  the  Resurrection  narratives, 
the  first,  that  of  the  Appearance  of  Jesus  upon  the  Emmaus  Road 
(Luke  24:13-35),  may  have  been  largely  expanded  by  the  hand  of  the 
evangelist;  but  that  the  rest  (vss.  36-53)  are  in  the  main  drawn  from 
some  definite  source,  probably  J. 

CONCLUSIONS 

It  has  now  been  discovered  that  an  examination  of  the  Passion- 
narrative  of  the  Third  Gospel  in  detail  confirms  the  conclusion  to  which 
a  more  general  survey  in  the  preceding  chapter  had  already  led  us, 
namely,  that  the  great  mass  of  the  non-Markan  materials  of  the  Passion- 
narrative  of  Luke,  and  indeed  almost  the  whole  of  his  record  of  the  Last 
Supper,  the  arrest,  trial,  execution,  and  Resurrection  appearances  of 
Jesus,  is  derived  from  a  group  of  materials  independent  of  Mark  and 
possessed  of  a  definite  arrangement.  To  this  source-group  have  been 
ascribed  some  165^  verses,  as  follows:3  Luke  19:28,  37-44;  21:120, 

13-15,    18-20,    2lb-22,    23&-260,    28,    34-36,    37-38;      22:8,    14-190,    21, 

23-24,  25-32>  35-38,  39,  40-41,  42^-46,  4?a,  47^-49,  5ia,  S3C>  54aJ 
55-600,  610,  62,  63-65,  66a,  67-68,  70;  23:1-2  (3),  4-16,  18-21,  226- 

24,  27-33,  35-37.  39-43,  46,  48-490,  5°-5i<*  (5^-53^),  53^-54,  55~5^; 
24:  (i),  2-100,  13-35,  36-53.  In  addition  to  these  there  are  a  few  other 
verses  which  possibly,  but  not  with  such  certainty,  belong  also  to  the 
same  group  of  materials:  Luke  19:47-48;  20:20,  26,  34-36;  22:33, 
50,  516;  23:25,  47;  24:11,  12.  Luke  20:17-18  has  been  ascribed  to 
a  source  of  a  different  character. 

1  Luke  the  Physician,  pp.  139-43;  Lukas  der  Arzt,  pp.  99-102. 

2  It  must  still  remain  possible,  however,  that  this  too  was  the  work  of  the  author 
of  J  (although  he  hardly  appears  to  Pauline  in  other  sections),  since  the  last  verses  of 
the  section  (especially  vs.  33)  serve  as  the  setting  of  the  succeeding  narrative. 

3  In  verses  designated  in  italic  figures  considerable  editorial  re-working  may  have 
taken  place  as  they  now  stand. 

124 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  55 

There  remains  to  inquire  whether  this  attribution  of  the  materials 
will  explain  the  larger  facts  of  the  diversities  between  the  Lukan  and. the 
Markan  Passion-narratives.  It  is  at  once  apparent  that  it  does  account 
for  the  additional  materials  in  Luke.  That  the  transpositions  and  other 
corrections  are  also  thus  accounted  for  has  been  pointed  out  in  the  par- 
ticular cases  in  the  foregoing  treatment  of  the  several  passages.  The 
bearing  of  this  discrimination  of  the  materials  upon  the  striking  want  of 
agreement  between  Luke  and  Mark  has  also  been  pom  ted  out  in  detail; 
but  its  bearing  in  the  large  may  now  be  summarized.  In  the  approxi- 
mately 165!  verses  above  ascribed  to  J  there  are  2,511  words,  of  which 
295,  or  1 1 . 75  per  cent,  are  common  also  to  Mark;  while  in  the  remaining 
103^  verses  there  are  1,597  words,  of  which  1,027,  or  65  .61  per  cent,  are 
shared  with  the  Second  Gospel;  of  these  the  greater  portion,  1,263  words 
in  85  verses,  occur  in  the  earlier  portion  (Luke  19:28 — 22:13)  of  the 
Passion-narrative,  and  these  agree  with  Mark  in  828  words  (66.7  per 
cent),  while  the  remaining  portion,  334  words,  agree  in  but  201  words, 
or  6 1 . 3  per  cent.  This  agreement  with  Mark  is  indeed  closer  than  that 
found  in  earlier  portions  of  the  Third  Gospel,  and  it  may  be  objected 
that  an  undue  proportion  of  the  more  remotely  paralleled  materials  have 
been  assigned  to  J.  But  it  must  be  observed :  (i)  that  in  chapter  20  there 
is  a  large  proportion  of  discourse  materials,  in  which  the  agreement  is 
regularly  closer  than  the  average  (cf.  p.  8),  and  (2)  that  in  the  latter 
portion  of  the  Passion-narrative  the  groundwork  of  the  narrative  is 
non-Markan  and  the  Markan  materials  appear  in  short  interpolations, 
in  which  the  evangelist  would  be  much  more  likely  to  copy  the  language 
accurately  than  in  the  reproduction  of  longer  paragraphs,1  and  that  the 
greater  amount  of  agreement  (8  per  cent  additional)  is  not  more  than 
is  consistent  with  this  diversity  in  the  employment  of  the  materials. 

It  may  therefore  be  concluded  that  the  assignment  of  a  considerable 
portion  of  the  materials  of  the  Passion-narrative  of  the  Third  Gospel, 
approximately  as  indicated  above,  to  a  non-Markan  source  does  account 
for  the  phenomena  which  have  been  observed  in  that  narrative.  It 
still  remains,  however,  to  inquire  whether  there  are  apparent  in  the  style 
and  language,  or  in  the  thought  of  these  materials,  any  particular  char- 
acteristics which  will  serve  further  to  differentiate  them  from  the  Markan 
source  or  from  the  hand  of  the  evangelist  himself,  or  which  will  furnish 
any  clue  as  to  the  original  form  and  nature  of  this  source.  This  investi- 
gation must  be  our  next  task. 

1  See  Dr.  Sanday's  sane  description  of  the  physical  conditions  of  the  evangelists' 
literary  work  in  Ox.  Stud.,  pp.  16-19. 

125 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  INDEPENDENCE  OF  THE  J  MATERIALS 
I.      VOCABULARY 

The  materials  now  assigned  to  J  contain  some  164^  verses  out  of 
the  1,149  verses  of  the  whole  Gospel,  that  is,  they  are  just  one-seventh 
as  long  as  the  whole  Gospel  and  just  one-sixth  as  long  as  the  Acts  (which 
has  1,000  verses).  The  total  number  of  words  in  these  sections  is  about 
2,511,  and  the  total  vocabulary  contains  some  601  different  words.  It 
is  now  our  task  to  investigate  this  vocabulary  for  evidence  bearing  on 
the  conclusion  we  have  tentatively  reached,  that  the  J  materials  are 
drawn  from  a  distinct  source.  Such  evidence  may  be  sought  along 
several  lines:  either  from  the  proportion  of  words  which  appear  foreign 
to  the  evangelist  and  are  rare  in  the  rest  of  his  work,  or  from  the  use 
in  the  J  materials  of  words  for  which  the  rest  of  the  Gospel  seems  to 
prefer  a  synonym,  or  from  the  scarcity  of  certain  expressions  which 
characterize  the  rest  of  the  evangelist's  work. 

i.  Of  the  582  words  in  the  vocabulary  of  the  J  materials,  there  are 
214  which  are  fairly  common  in  the  New  Testament,  and  71  more  which 
are  listed  by  Hawkins1  as  " characteristic  of  Luke,"  and  there  are  also 
64  words  (including  18  of  Hawkins'  "Lukan  characteristics")  which  are 
common  both  in  J  and  in  the  other  non-Markan  portions  of  Luke.  Elimi- 
nating these  331  words,  we  have  a  remainder  of  251  words  which  demand 
a  closer  study. 

The  first  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  such  a  study  is  that  the  vocabu- 
lary of  J  is  more  closely  related  to  that  of  the  non-Markan  sections  of 
Luke  than  to  that  of  the  sections  derived  from  the  Markan  source; 
for,  of  the  97  words  which  appear  as  frequently  in  J  as  in  the  rest  of  the 
Gospel,  there  are  66  which  are  found  only  in  non-Markan  sections  and 
but  31  which  appear  at  all  in  the  Markan  materials.  Adding  to  these 
66  words  the  other  64  words  which  appear  only  in  J  and  in  non-Markan 
sections,  we  have  a  total  of  130  words,  in  J,  characteristic  of  the  non- 
Markan  materials,  or  a  little  more  than  one-fifth  of  the  total  vocabulary. 

A  still  larger  proportion  of  the  words,  however,  are  more  or  less 
characteristic  of  the  J  materials.  Thus  there  are  97  words  which  appear 

1  J.  C.  Hawkins,  Horae  Synopticae  (2d  ed.,  1909),  pp.  16-23. 

56  [126 


THE  SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  57 

as  often  in  J  as  in  the  rest  of  the  Gospel,  114  which,  although  found  else- 
where in  the  New  Testament,  do  not  occur  in  the  Third  Gospel  outside 
of  the  J  materials,  and  40  which  are  hapax  legomena1  and  do  not  occur 
elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament.  This  means  that  a  total  of  251 
words,  or  42 . 7  per  cent  of  the  vocabulary,  are  to  a  considerable  degree 
characteristic  of  the  J  materials. 

This  figure,  however,  does  not  take  account  of  the  possible  recurrence 
of  some  of  these  words  in  Acts  to  such  an  extent  that  they  must  be 
regarded  as  belonging  rather  to  the  vocabulary  of  the  evangelist  than 
to  that  of  his  source.  Further  sifting  is  therefore  necessary.  We  may 
consider,  therefore,  two  classes  of  words:  those  peculiarly  characteristic 
of  the  J  materials  and  those  which  do  not  occur  elsewhere  in  the  Lukan 
writings.  To  the  first  class  will  be  assigned  those  words  that  appear  at 
least  twice  in  the  J  materials  and  are  not  found  in  either  the  remainder 
of  Luke  or  the  Acts  more  frequently  than  they  are  used  in  J.  The  first 
characteristic  of  these  words,  that  they  occur  at  least  twice  in  the  J 
materials,  is  essential  to  assure  us  that  the  word  is  truly  characteristic 
and  not  merely  of  accidental  occurrence;  the  second,  that  they  appear 
no  oftener  in  the  rest  of  Luke  or  in  Acts,  is  sufficient  to  insure  their 
being  peculiarly  characteristic  of  J,  since  the  remainder  of  the  Gospel, 
and  the  whole  of  Acts,  is  each  six  times  as  long  as  the  J  materials.  Of 
the  words  of  this  class  there  are  37  (designated  with  a  dagger,  f,  in 
the  list  of  Appendix  II).  Of  the  words  of  the  second  class,  those  not 
found  in  the  Lukan  writings  outside  of  the  J  sections,  there  are  90 
(designated  in  the  list  of  Appendix  II  with  a  single  asterisk,  *),  including 
40  words  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament.  This  gives  a 
total  of  127  words  which  may  fairly  be  called  characteristic  of  the  source 
rather  than  of  the  evangelist,  or  a  little  more  than  one-fifth  of  the  whole 
vocabulary. 

In  order  to  estimate  more  surely  the  significance  of  these  factors,  as 
well  as  to  furnish  a  check  upon  that  factor  of  variety  in  discourse  inherent 
in  the  fact  that  each  new  subject  requires  some  new  words,  we  may 
apply  a  similar  investigation  to  a  passage  of  Markan  materials  in  the  im- 
mediate context  of  J.  For  this  purpose  examine  Luke  20:2-16,  27-33, 
37-47.  These  passages  contain  33  verses  and  460  words.  Their  total 
vocabulary  contains  159  words,  of  which  92  are  common  in  the  New 
Testament.  As  characteristic  of  these  sections  there  are  36  words  which 

1  Hapax  legomena  might  be  referred  either  to  the  evangelist  or  to  the  source ; 
but  since  the  probability  of  their  repetition  grows  in  direct  proportion  to  the  length  of 
the  document  in  which  they  occur,  they  are  more  probably  to  be  referred  to  the  source. 

127 


58  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

appear  as  frequently  here  as  in  the  rest  of  Luke,  n  more  not  found 
elsewhere  in  the  Third  Gospel,  and  also  4  hapax  legomena — a  total  of 
51  words  in  all,  or  one- third  of  the  whole  vocabulary.  The  figure  for 
the  similar  classes  of  J,  however,  is  251,  or  two-fifths  of  its  whole  vocabu- 
lary. Thus  the  J  materials  contain  half  again  as  many  non-Lukan  words 
as  do  the  test  sections  of  Markan  materials  examined  above,  in  proportion 
to  their  entire  vocabulary.  Even  considering  the  relative  frequency  of 
these  characteristic  words  in  the  sentence  or  verse  (this  can  be  estimated 
pretty  closely,  as  few  of  them  occur  more  than  once),  a  similar  conclusion 
is  reached:  the  J  sections  contain,  in  the  2,703  words,  251  characteristic 
words,  or  about  one  in  every  ten-and-one-half ;  while  the  test  sections 
have  51  characteristic  words  in  a  total  of  460,  or  one  in  every  nine — 
that  is,  the  unusual  words  are  about  as  frequent  in  the  J  sections. 

To  these  facts,  however,  must  be  added  a  further  observation:  of 
the  51  unusual  words  in  the  test  sections,  39  are  seen,  by  comparison  with 
the  parallel  sections  of  Mark,  to  have  been  derived  by  the  evangelist 
from  his  source,  and  but  12  can  be  attributed  to  the  evangelist  him- 
self. The  obvious  conclusion  from  this  is  that  only  about  20  per  cent  of 
the  unusual  language,  at  the  most,  can  be  attributed  to  the  editor,  and 
that  the  rest  must  be  regarded  as  characteristic  of  the  source  materials. 
If  then  the  J  materials  contain  more  words  not  elsewhere  common  in 
the  Lukan  writings  than  do  the  test  sections  of  Markan  materials,  it 
is  a  safe  inference  that  the  evangelist,  so  far  from  composing  freely,  is 
rather  following  the  language  of  his  source  more  closely  than  he  followed 
the  Markan  document. 

This  inference  is  again  borne  out  by  comparison  of  the  characteristic 
words  of  the  two  groups  of  material.  There  are  21  Markan  words  rare 
or  wanting  in  the  rest  of  Luke  and  3  other  words  not  found  elsewhere 
in  Luke  or  Acts — a  total  of  24  words,  or  one-sixth  of  the  whole  vocabu- 
lary— which  may  be  called  characteristic  of  the  test  sections;  but  the 
J  sections  contain  127  characteristic  words,  which  form  a  little  more  than 
one-fifth  of  the  total  vocabulary.  The  Lukan  language  then  is  again 
shown  to  be  less  prominent  in  J  than  in  the  Markan  materials. 

In  the  following  tabulation  of  the  foregoing  data,  the  first  column  of 
figures  presents  the  actual  number  of  words  from  the  vocabulary  of  J 
which  fall  into  the  category  indicated;  the  second  column,  the  proportion 
of  the  whole  which  they  constitute;  the  third  presents  the  actual  number 
of  words  in  the  test  sections  which  fall  into  the  particular  class;  the 
fourth,  the  number  of  such  words  paralleled  in  Mark;  the  fifth,  the 
proportion  of  the  figure  in  the  third  column  to  the  whole  number  of 

128 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE 


59 


words  in  the  vocabulary  of  the  test  sections;  and  the  final  column  states 
the  proportion  of  the  J  percentage  to  that  of  the  test  sections.  The 
categories  are  fully  explained  in  the  foregoing  discussion.  We  may  then 
tabulate  the  data  as  shown  in  Table  II. 

TABLE  II 


J  MAT 

ERIALS 

TE, 

ST  SECTI 

DNS 

Words 

Per- 
centage 

Words 

Markan 
Words 

Per- 
centage 

PORTION 

Total  number  of  words 

2  7O7. 

d6o 

Number  of  different  words  

582 

IOO.O 

ICQ 

IOO.O 

I    OO 

Common  words 

214. 

36.8 

Q2 

7O 

C7    8 

I    CO 

Lukan  characteristics  

71 

12  .  2 

Characteristics  of  non-Markan  sections  . 

64 

II  .O 

1C 

12 

9.4 

Remainder  

251 

52 

Characteristics  of  non-Markan  sections 

64 

II    O 

1C. 

12 

94 

J  characteristics  in  non-Markan  sections 

66 

II  •  3 

17 

1C, 

IO.  7 

J  characteristics  in  Markan  sections 

3i 

C.7 

IQ 

16 

12  .O 

Total                  

161 

27.6 

ci 

42 

3.2.  0 

1.16 

Words  rare  in  rest  of  Luke 

O7 

16  6 

*6 

71 

22    6 

Words  not  in  rest  of  Luke 

114. 

IQ   4. 

II 

38 

6   0 

Words  not  hi  rest  of  New  Testament 

4O 

6.7 

A 

o 

2    C. 

Total                      

2CI 

42   7 

CI 

7Q 

32    O 

O  7C 

Wrords  most  often  in  present  sections 

77 

6  * 

24. 

21 

I<?    O 

Words  not  in  rest  of  Luke-Acts 

CO 

86 

2    C. 

W7ords  not  in  rest  of  New  Testament  

40 

6-7 

4 

0 

2-5 



Total  characteristics  of  sections.  .  .  . 

127 

21.8 

32 

24 

20.  o 

O.QI 

2.  Turning  now  to  the  choice  of  synonyms,  it  will  appear  shortly 
that  there  are  a  number  of  cases  where  the  J  materials  employ  one  of  a 
pair  or  a  group  of  synonyms  far  more  frequently,  in  proportion,  than  does 
the  rest  of  the  Gospel  or  the  Acts.  It  is,  of  course,  true,  as  Ropes  has 
pointed  out,1  that  the  third  evangelist  quite  frequently  introduces  a 
synonym  for  a  word  just  used,  for  the  sake  of  variety;  but  a  marked 
preference  of  J  for  one  of  a  set  of  synonyms,  where  the  rest  of  the  Lukan 
materials  prefer  another,  would  seem  to  be  most  easily  attributed  to 
the  underlying  source  rather  than  to  an  editor,  and  may  therefore  be 

1  J.  H.  Ropes,  "An  Observation  on  the  Style  of  St.  Luke,"  in  Harvard  Studies 
in  Classical  Philology,  XII  (1901),  299-305. 

129 


60  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

regarded  as  additional  evidence  to  confirm  our  previous  conclusions  as 
to  the  independence  of  the  J  materials.  Examples  of  this  preference  for 
a  different  synonym  are  not  wanting.1 

Verbs. — We  may  examine  first  the  verbs.  Of  the  verbs  of  striking, 
TVTTTW  is  rare  in  J  (1:3:5),  though  listed  by  Hawkins  as  characteristic  of 
Luke,  as  compared  with  TTCHCO  (1:0:0),  Trardo-o-co  (2:0:3),  and  TrcuScuw 
in  the  sense  of  "scourge"  (2:0:0).  Of  verbs  of  fearing,  Trroeo/xat  is 
peculiar  to  J  (2:0:0),  while  0o/3eo/zat  (1:3:5)  and  rapcuro-o)  (1:1:3)  are 
rare.  Of  verbs  of  silence,  0-170x0,  cited  by  Hawkins  as  characteristic  of 
Luke,  appears  only  in  Luke  20:26  in  an  editorial  passage  doubtfully 
assigned  to  J,  and  is  rare  (1:3:3)  in  comparison  with  <rtco7rdco  (1:1:1). 
Of  verbs  of  praising,  ev\oytu  (5:6:2)  is  preferred  to  alveu  (1:2:2)  or 
So£dfco  (1:8:5).  Of  verbs  of  doing,  Trpcurcra)  (4:2:13)  is  proportionately 
more  frequent  than  Trotew  (5 : 83 : 69).  Of  verbs  of  going,  epxoAtat  (5 : 94 : 
55)  and  its  compounds  (14: 132: 130)  are  proportionately  rare,  as  against 
TTopevo/zat  (8:43:39)  and  ffv^TropevonaL  (1:2:0).  Of  verbs  of  sitting, 
(4 : 8 : 7)  is  preferred  to  Ka0tf  co  (1:6:9);  and  of  verbs  of  reclining, 
(2:0:0)  is  preferred  to  towl-itu  (1:3:0)  or  /cara/cXtwo  (1:5:0). 
Of  verbs  of  concealing,  /caXuTrrco  and  TreptKaXuTmo  (1:1:0  and  1:0:0) 
seem  preferred  to  KPUTTTCO  (1:3:0).  Verbs  of  announcing  and  preaching 
are  all  rare;  but  euayyeXt^o/zat  (0:10:15)  is  entirely  wanting  in  J, 
while  dTrcryyeXXco  (1:10:16)  and  K^PUO-CTCO  (1:8:8)  both  appear.  Of 
verbs  to  describe  the  resurrection,  avlarwi  CK.  vettpuv  (2:1:1)  is  propor- 
tionately more  frequent  than  kydpo^ai  £K  veKp&v  (2:5:8). 

Nouns. — Of  designations  of  the  inner  circle  of  Jesus'  followers,  ot 
fj,a6r]Tai  (2:5:0)  is  preferred  to  ot  ScoSexa  (eV5e/ca)  (3:6:3)  or  ot  aTrooroXot 
(i:7:plurr.).  Of  designations  of  transgressors,  naKovpyos  (3:0:0)  is 
preferred  to  d/xaprcoXos  (i :  16:0)  or  avofjios  (i  :o:  i).  Of  titles  of  rulers  in 
the  ecclesiastical  body  irpefffivrepos  (0:3:7)  is  wanting,  but  ot  Trpcbrot 
(1:0:3)  and  ot  apxovres  (3:5:10)  are  used.  For  reference  to  a  grave, 

1  The  basis  of  comparison  here  will  be  the  proportion  between  the  number  of 
occurrences  of  one  word  and  those  of  its  synonyms,  comparing  this  proportion  in  J 
with  that  for  the  rest  of  Luke  and  Acts.  Thus,  if  a  word  A  is  used  twice  as  often  in 
the  J  materials  as  its  synonym  B,  and  occurs  only  half  as  often  as  B  in  the  other  Lukan 
materials,  it  will  be  considered  the  preferred  synonym  in  J,  and  B  will  be  considered 
rare  in  J. 

The  figures  in  parentheses  following  each  word  denote  the  number  of  occurrences 
of  the  word  in  J,  in  the  rest  of  Luke,  and  in  Acts,  respectively.  Thus  (x,  y,  z)  means 
that  the  word  is  used  x  tunes  in  J,  y  times  in  the  rest  of  Luke,  and  z  times  in  Acts. 
In  weighing  these  proportions  it  should  be  recalled  that  the  remainder  of  Luke,  and 
the  book  of  Acts,  are  each  six  times  as  long  as  the  J  source. 

130 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  61 

(0:3:2)  is  wanting,  but  iJLvrintiov  (5 : 2 :  i)  is  common.  For  writing 
and  writings  ypa^a  (0:2:2)  is  wanting,  but  ypa^rj  (3:1:1)  and  r6 
ytypafjifjLevov  (4:2:2)  are  frequent,  although  the  finite  perfect  yeypairTai 
is  rare  (1:10:5).  For  "deed,"  epyov  (1:1:10)  seems  rare,  compared 
with  7rpd£is  (i  :o:  i),  and  irpayna  (o:  i :  i)  is  wanting.  God  is  referred  to 
as  Uarrjp  somewhat  frequently  (3:13: 3)  as  against  the  more  general  term 
Geos  (9:82:173),  and  Kupios  is  rare  (i:38:plurr.).  The  noun  dpxtcpcus 
is  wanting  in  the  singular  (0:3:11),  but  frequent  in  the  plural  (7:5:11). 

Adjectives. — For  "many,"  Uavos  (3:7:18)  is  decidedly  preferred 
to  TroXvs  (2 : 42 : 49).  For  " all, "  6X0$  (i :  15 : 20)  is  rare,  and  auras  (4:7: 10) 
is  frequent,  relatively  to  iras  (2i:i33:plurr.).  For  "other,"  crepes 
(4:30:18)  is  rare  compared  with  aXXos  (2:7:5)  and  Xouros  (2:4:6). 
For  the  mention  of  a  name,  /caXoujucj/os  (1:7:9),  and  especially  \ty6fj*vos 
(i  :o:o),  are  preferred  to  the  uses  of  oz>o/xa — 6^6/xart  (2:5: 22)  and  <j>  ovojjia 
(1:6:1).  For  "deserving,"  amos  (3:0:1)  is  preferred  to  a£ios  (2:6:7), 
rifuos  (0:0:2),  or  &TLIJLOS  (0:2:0).  Of  the  two  adjectives  for  "left- 
hand,"  J  uses  dpio-Tcpos  (1:0:0),  while  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament 
uses  efcow/ios  (0:0:  i,  etc.).  For  indefinite  article,  els  (3: 14:3)  seems  to 
approach  rls  (9:70:118)  more  closely  here  than  elsewhere. 

Adverbs  and  particles. — As  an  adverb  of  asseveration  cWcos  (2:0:0)  is 
preferred  to  a^v  (i :  5 : o)  or  the  phrase  en'  a^rjdeLas  (1:3:2).  Among  the 
prepositional  adverbs  for  "before,"  kvavrlov  (2:1:2)  is  preferred  to 
€fj.Trpoadev  (3:6:2)  and  tvumov  (3:16:14). 

The  evidence  of  these  sets  of  synonyms  is  not  of  equal  value  through- 
out. In  some  cases  it  is  quite  striking,  in  others  somewhat  doubtful; 
but  the  total  effect  of  these  instances  must  be  to  corroborate  the  impres- 
sion that  there  is  a  distinct  diversity  of  language  between  the  J  materials 
and  the  rest  of  the  Lukan  writings. 

3.  A  third  line  of  evidence  is  that  of  words  used  in  the  J  materials 
hi  a  different  sense  from  that  given  them  in  the  rest  of  Luke  and  in 
Acts.  As  examples  may  be  cited  the  following  words:  aTrofialvu  in  the 
sense  to  happen,  elsewhere  to  descend;  duorq/u,  to  depart;  e>cXct7ra>,  to 
be  eclipsed;  TraiScua?,  to  scourge,  elsewhere  used  of  education;  cryXXajujSawo, 
to  arrest,  elsewhere  used  of  the  act  of  conception ;  ^aiwo,  to  seem,  elsewhere 
meaning  to  become  visible;  irvevpa,  of  the  spirit  of  a  dead  person,  but 
not  used  of  demons ;  and  o-ro/xa  of  the  blade  of  a  weapon. 

There  is  a  similar  emphasis  upon  one  of  several  meanings  of  a  word, 
without  the  exclusion  of  the  others,  in  some  further  cases.  For  example, 
crcbfco  is  used  of  physical  preservation  from  peril  most  largely  in  J(3 : 2 : 2), 
and  not  at  all  of  spiritual  salvation,  the  meaning  most  common  in  the 

131 


62  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 


rest  of  Luke  (o:io:n).  And  vpofarfis  rarely  refers,  as  elsewhere  in 
Luke  and  Acts,  to  the  prophetic  man  (1:24:30),  but  more  frequently 
to  the  Scriptures  (3:3:12). 

4.  A  fourth  line  of  evidence  for  the  independence  of  the  J  materials 
might  be  adduced  from  the  rarity  of  certain  words  frequent  in  the  rest 
of  the  Lukan  writings.  Conspicuous  among  these  is  the  adjective  TTO\VS, 
which  occurs  but  twice  in  the  J  materials,  but  is  found  in  the  rest  of  Luke 
42  times,  and  46  times  in  Acts.  Other  similar  words  are:  the  impersonal 
use  of  tyevero  (5:43:-),  inrapxw  (1:15:25),  5tcpxoM<u  (0:10:20),  Tnar6s 
(0:4:4),  TTovrjpbs  (0:12:8),  ayye\os  (1:23:21),  d/iaorwAos  (1:16:0), 
6  Kfynos,  of  God  (1:38:  plurr.)  and  of  Jesus  (2  :  14  :  plurr.),  TTO\LS  (4  :  42  :  43), 
irpofoTfo  (4:27:42),  XPOVOS  (1:6:17),  tvx*l  (1:12:17),  axpts  (1:3:17), 
cm  (1:15:6),  vvv  (3:15:26),  and  erepos  (4:30:18). 

It  is  therefore  apparent,  from  the  number  of  words  unusual  in  other 
portions  of  the  Lukan  writings,  from  the  diversity  in  the  choice  of 
synonyms  common  to  all  parts  of  Luke  and  Acts,  from  the  use  of  common 
words  in  unusual  meanings,  and  from  the  rarity  of  some  words  common 
in  the  rest  of  the  Gospel  and  Acts,  that  the  J  materials  use  a  vocabulary 
considerably  different  from  that  of  the  evangelist  or  of  his  other  sources, 
though  approaching  more  closely  to  that  of  the  non-Markan  sources. 
This  evidence  will  go  far  to  confirm  the  conclusion  that  the  third  evange- 
list derived  the  J  materials  from  an  independent  source. 

II.      LITERARY   STYLE 

Individuality  of  vocabulary,  however,  no  matter  how  pronounced, 
cannot  be  a  final  test  of  diversity  of  origin;  for  much  of  the  vocabulary 
is  dependent  upon  the  subject-matter  treated,  and  a  considerable  degree 
of  variety  is  to  be  expected  of  a  writer  of  the  literary  skill  of  the  third 
evangelist.  A  more  subtle  test  is  perhaps  to  be  found  in  the  more  general 
features  of  the  style  and  in  particular  turns  of  expression.  We  turn, 
now,  to  the  consideration  of  some  of  these. 

i.  Characteristic  of  the  J  materials,  as  of  no  other  portion  of  the 
Gospel,  is  the  presence  of  exact  details  in  fixing  the  scene  of  an  incident, 
or  in  otherwise  depicting  the  scene.  In  general,  Luke  is  wont  to  use 
fewer  details  in  his  descriptions  than  does  his  Markan  source,1  though 
he  uses  to  good  effect  those  which  he  does  employ.  But  in  the  J  materials 
we  come  upon  a  series  of  definite  hints  of  time  and  place  to  which  there 
is  no  parallel  in  the  earlier  portions  of  the  Gospel.  Such  are:  irp6s  r# 
KarajSderci  TOV  opovs  r&v  eXauoi>  (19:37),  axrei  \L0ov  fioKyv  (22  :4i),  Staordcrtys 

1  Cf.  A.  Plummer,  St.  Luke  (in  International  Critical  Commentary),  pp.  xlvi-xlvii. 

132 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  63 


cb(7€t  wpas  /uas  (22:59),  /*€T<*  &PaXv  (22:58),  a.Tr€X°v<rav  trraSlous 
(24:13),  ap£anevoi  airb  'l€pov(ra\r)fjL  (24:47).  Other  phrases  which  are 
more  common  in  the  synoptic  tradition  and  in  other  parts  of  Luke,  such 
as  en  auroD  XaXoiWos  (22:47,  60;  24:36),  irapaxpijiJia  (22:60,  a  Lukan 
characteristic),  avrfi  rfi  &pq.  (24:33),  serve  rather  simply  to  relate  the 
incidents  of  the  narrative,  and  have  not  the  same  degree  of  objective 
definiteness. 

A  similar  definiteness  appears  also  in  certain  descriptive  touches: 
Gels  ra  ywaTa  (22:42),  aird  TTJS  XU-TTTJS  (22:45),  KaBrjfj^vos  irp6s  TO  <£ws 
(22:56),  6  Kupios  evefi\e\{/6V  T<£  Herp^  (22:61),  7T€pi/8aXcoj>  eaBrjra  \afjnrp&v 
(23:11),  kykvovro  (f>i\oi  (23:12),  ov  OVK  fjv  ouScts  OVTTO)  KeifJLevos  (23:53), 
TO  fjiiv  <ra(3(3a.Tov  riff\j\a.(To.v  (23  :  56),  K\LVOV<T&V  ra.  irpocrcoTra  (24:  5), 

ffKvOpCOTToL     (24:18),     K€K\IK€V      ^dtj     $     rfukpCL     (24:29),     1%^UOS     OTTTOU 
(24:42). 

Illustrative  of  the  same  tendency  are  the  tacked-on  particidars 
already  referred  to  in  a  previous  chapter  (see  pp.  49,  51).  It  has  already 
been  shown  (p.  17)  that  the  evangelist  constructs  his  discourse  with 
considerable  skill  and  habitually  avoids  the  loose  appending  of  descrip- 
tive details  at  the  close  of  a  paragraph,  even  when  these  are  found  in 
his  Markan  source.  But  in  the  J  materials  these  tacked-on  appendixes, 
which  we  cannot  ascribe  to  the  evangelist,  are  not  infrequent.  The  most 
striking  examples  are  the  dating  of  the  entombment  of  Jesus  (23:54) 
and  the  list  of  the  women  (24:10),  but  other  instances  appear:  the 
friction  between  Pilate  and  Herod  (23:12^),  the  appearance  of  Jesus' 
accusers  before  Herod  (23:10),  the  title  on  the  cross  (23:38),  the 
watchers  at  the  crucifixion  (23:49),  and  perhaps  the  popular  interest 
in  Jesus  (19:486)  and  the  description  of  Barabbas  (23:19). 

A  second  characteristic  tendency  of  the  J  materials  is  in  the  direction 
of  redundancy.  Noteworthy  is  the  repetition  of  similar  or  nearly  sim- 
ilar phrases.  In  the  Last  Supper  the  phrase  "I  shall  not  eat  (drink) 
until  the  Kingdom  of  God"  (22  :  16,  18)  is  recorded  twice  in  very  similar 
language,  and  so  also  are  the  warning  to  pray  (22:40,  46),  the  cross- 
examination  of  Jesus  (22:67,  7°)>  Pilate's  offer  to  scourge  and  release 
Jesus  (23:  16,  23),  the  description  of  Barabbas  (23:  19,  25),  and  the  argu- 
ment from  prophecy  for  the  death  of  the  Christ  (24:  26,  46),  while  Pilate's 
exoneration  of  Jesus  is  thrice  recorded  (23:4,  14,  22).  Simple  redun- 
dancy also  appears:  the  condemnation  of  Jesus  is  three  times  stated 
in  23:24-25,  the  disbelief  of  the  disciples  (24:11)  and  Jesus'  teaching  in 
the  Temple  (21:37-38)  twice.  This,  however,  may  be  due  to  the  hand 
of  the  evangelist  (cf.  5:26;  9:45;  18:34,  etc.). 

133 


64  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

With  this  tendency  to  repetition  there  may  be  placed  also  another 
formal  tendency,  that  to  the  grouping  of  incidents  in  triads.  This 
appears  to  some  extent  in  the  other  Gospels  (as  in  Peter's  three  denials), 
but  it  is  more  prominent  in  the  J  materials  than  anywhere  else.  Thus 
we  find,  in  addition  to  Peter's  three  denials  (22:55-60),  three  warnings 
to  Jerusalem  (19:41-44;  21:20-21;  23:27-31),  three  appeals  by  Pilate 
in  Jesus'  behalf  (23: 14-16,  20,  22),  three  mockings  of  Jesus  on  the  cross 
(23:35,  36,  39)>  three  classes  impressed  by  his  death  (23:47,  48,  49), 
three  resurrection-narratives  (24:1-10,  13-35,  36-49),  and  three  appear- 
ances of  the  risen  Jesus  (24:15,  34,  36).  But  that  these  triads  are  not 
due  to  the  evangelist's  design  seems  demonstrated  by  the  fact  that  but 
a  single  visit  to  the  disciples  in  Gethsemane  is  recorded  by  him,  where 
Mark  has  a  triple  visit  (Luke  22:39-46;  cf.  Mark  14:32-42). 

A  third  characteristic  of  the  J  materials  lies  in  the  ability  with  which 
they  preserve  the  individuality  of  persons  introduced  as  actors  and  the 
dramatic  verisimilitude  of  the  words  put  into  their  mouths.  This  is 
most  striking  in  the  estimates  of  Jesus  attributed  to  one  or  another  of 
the  characters.  Compare,  for  example,  the  conventionally  Christian 
cast  of  the  remark  attributed  to  the  centurion  by  Mark  (Mark  15:39) 
with  the  moderation,  really  suitable  for  a  pagan,  of  the  Lukan  version 
(23:47),  although  the  evangelist  adds  one  of  his  own  favorite  phrases, 
not  at  all  suitable  to  the  Roman,  e56£a£ev  rov  Qeov.  Again,  as  Jesus 
is  hanging  on  the  cross,  the  rulers  and  even  the  Jewish  bandit  or  zealot 
address  him  in  irony  with  the  Jewish  title  of  "the  Christ,  the  elect  of 
God"  (23:35,  39),  but  the  Roman  soldiery  use  the  political  term  "king 
of  the  Jews"  (23:37).  The  charges  preferred  against  Jesus  are  likewise 
Jewish  in  the  Sanhedrin  (22:66,  70),  but  political  before  Pilate  (23: 2,  5). 
This  dramatic  quality  comes  out  tragically  at  the  close  of  Jesus'  Farewell 
Discourse  (22:38),  where  the  disciples  again  fail  to  understand  his 
meaning,1  and  produce  their  two  swords.  And  it  appears,  too,  in  the 
closing  chapter  of  the  Gospel,  where  the  two  disciples  present  a  purely 
Jewish  conception  of  the  Messiah  as  their  estimate  of  the  significance  of 
Jesus  (24:19,  21). 

2.  In  the  matter  of  syntax  and  rhetoric,  also,  some  diversities  between 
the  usage  of  J  and  that  of  the  rest  of  the  Third  Gospel  may  be  noted. 
While  the  perfect  tenses  are  rather  less  frequent,  both  in  the  finite  forms 
(6:4o:-)2  and  in  the  participle  (8:62:-),  the  pluperfect  is  much  more 

1  Luke,  however,  often  thus  represents  them  (cf.  9 : 45 ;    18 : 34). 

2  As  above,  the  first  figure  of  the  proportion  gives  the  number  of  occurrences  in 
J,  the  second  the  number  in  the  rest  of  Luke,  and  the  third  the  number  in  Acts. 

134 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  65 

frequent  (3:1:-).  A  similar  reduction  of  the  use  of  the  perfect  appears 
in  the  case  of  the  periphrastic  form  of  the  verb,  the  participle  with  forms 
of  Avon :  this  periphrasis  is  slightly  more  frequent  in  J  than  in  the  rest 
of  the  Lukan  writings  (13:45:40)  proportionately,  but  the  use  of  the 
perfect  participle  in  periphrastic  construction  is  proportionately  rare 
(4:18:19),  and  here  only  is  it  extended  to  the  use  of  the  aorist  parti- 
ciple (Luke  23 : 19).*  The  optative  mood  is  comparatively  rare  (1:12:—). 
The  verb  y^ojuat,  while  common  in  J  (29 : 101 :  -),  is  rare  in  the  impersonal 
use  of  tyevero  (5:41:-),  though  fairly  common  in  chapter  24,  constitut- 
ing there  four  of  the  nine  occurrences  of  the  word.  The  infinitive  of 
purpose  is  rare  (6:53:-). 

The  use  of  the  dative  of  agent  of  pronouns  with  passive  verbs  is 
somewhat  frequent,  proportionately  (2:2:4,  in  Luke  23:15;  24:35; 
10:17,  20;  Acts  5:9;  13:42;  23:21;  27:25),  unless  the  datives  be 
so  construed  with  the  passive  of  opdo>  hi  the  meaning  "to  appear" 
(cf.  Luke  1:11;  Acts  1:3;  2:3;  7:26,30,35;  9:17;  26:16  bis)  and  in 
the  phrase  TOVTO  vfuv  yvuaTov  Itrroj  (Acts  2:14;  4:10;  13:38;  28:28). 
The  Hebraic  use  of  a  cognate  noun  of  the  similar  stem  or  similar 
meaning,  to  emphasize  the  idea  of  the  verb  (e.g.,  kmOv^La  €7r€0u/zr/(ra, 
favfi  neyaXy  tKpafrv),  seems  to  be  slightly  more  common  in  J  (4:8:-;  cf. 
19:37;  22:15;  23:23,  46;  1:42;  2:8,  9;  4:34;  7:29;  8:28;  11:46; 
17:16).  Also,  expressions  for  "past,"  "present,"  and  "future"  (ret 
yevoneva,  rd  /^XXoi/ra,  TO  tvofjievov,  TO.  ffvu^e^Kora,  etc.)  are  especially 
common  in  J  (6:6:5;  c^-  Luke  21:36;  22:49;  23:47»  4^5  24:14,  18; 
2:15;  8:34,  35,  56;  9:7;  13:9;  Acts  3:10;  4:21;  5:7:  12:9;  13:12). 

Noteworthy  is  an  extended  use  of  the  article  hi  a  number  of  relations. 
The  genitive  TOV  with  the  infinitive  is  slightly  more  common  (7:19:24; 
cf.  Moulton  and  Geden,  Concordance,  pp.  670-80),  and  particularly 
with  the  infinitive  of  purpose  (4:7:-),  although  without  the  article  the 
infinitive  of  purpose  is  very  rare  (2:46:-).  Similarly,  the  article  used 
to  introduce  a  clause  is  found  chiefly  in  the  J  sections,  with  an  indirect 
question  (3:4:-;  cf.  Luke  19:48;  22:23,  24;  1:62;  9:46;  22:1,  4), 
or  even  with  a  direct  quotation  (Luke  22:37  only).  It  is  similarly  em- 
ployed with  an  adverbial  phrase — TO  Ka0'  riiju-pav — once  in  J  (Luke 
19:47)  and  once  in  an  earlier  passage  of  Luke  (11:3). 

In  the  uses  of  prepositions  the  following  may  be  noted :  dro 
with  the  genitive  of  cause  is  proportionately  common  (3:9:-;  in  Luke 
21:26;  22:45;  24:41;  6:18;  7:35;  8:29,  43;  9:22;  12:4;  17:25; 
18:3;  19:3).  Sid  with  the  genitive  is  rare  (2:12:54;  in  J  only  in 

1  Cf.  W.  H.  Simcox,  Language  of  the  New  Testament,  pp.  131-34. 

135 


66  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

Luke  22:22;  24 : 53) .  The  partitive  use  of  IK  is  common  (4  times,  in  Luke 
22:23,  50;  24:13,  22),  although  rare  in  the  rest  of  Luke  except  in  the 
Great  Interpolation  (12  times  in  P,  3  in  the  remainder  of  Luke).  The 
use  of  CTTI  with  the  dative  is  rare  (3:30:25).  wpos  with  the  dative  is 
used  by  Luke  only  in  J  (Luke  19:37).  For  the  notion  of  agency,  airo 
is  to  some  extent  replaced  by  I>TTO;  in  the  rest  of  Luke  the  former  quite 
largely  predominates  (airo  39  times,  viro  21  times),  but  in  J  their  occur- 
rences are  the  same  in  number  (airo  in  Luke  21:26;  22:45;  24:4*; 
biro  in  Luke  21:20,  24;  23:8),  but  both  expressions  are  comparatively 
rare  (6:60:-).  The  use  of  ews  with  a  phrase  already  introduced  by  a 
preposition  is  peculiar  to  J  (Luke  24:50),  and  its  use  with  a  clause  is 
shared  by  J  (in  Luke  22: 16, 18;  24:49)  with  the  Great  Interpolation  only 
(6  occurrences  in  P).  The  particle  d  used  to  introduce  a  wish  is  more 
frequent  in  the  J  materials  (2:1:0;  in  Luke  19:42;  22:42;  12:49), 
and  as  an  interrogative  particle  it  is  comparatively  more  frequent  than 
outside  of  J  (3:2:6;  in  Luke  22:49,  67;  23:37;  6:9;  13:23;  Acts  1:6; 
4:19;  7:1;  19:2;  21:37;  22:25). 

These  diversities  of  rhetorical  usage  between  J  and  the  hand  of  the 
evangelist  himself  and  his  sources  are  not  all  of  them  of  large  significance 
taken  singly,  but  their  collective  import  is  considerable,  and  they  serve  to 
bear  out  the  former  conclusion  as  to  the  independence  of  the  J  materials. 

3.  Thus  the  data  of  style  and  language  have  so  far  tended  to  con- 
firm the  hypothesis  that  the  J  materials  of  the  Third  Gospel  were  derived 
from  a  non-Markan  source.  Stanton,  however,  on  the  basis  of  an  exami- 
nation of  the  frequency  of  "Lukan  characteristics"  in  Markan  passages,1 
concludes  that  four  sections  of  our  J  materials — Luke  19:41-44;  23: 
5-12, 14-1 5 ;  23 : 39-43 ;  and  chapter  24 — are  from  the  pen  of  the  evange- 
list composing  freely,  perhaps  on  the  basis  of  oral  tradition,  but  not 
drawn  from  any  documentary  source.  But  these  sections,  if  compared 
together,  do  not  make  an  altogether  unified  impression,  as  they  should 
do  if  all  were  the  product  of  the  same  hand.  In  the  Lament  of  Jesus 
over  Jerusalem,  for  instance,  and  the  narrative  of  his  appearance  to 
Cleopas  and  his  companion,  the  Semitic  coloring  of  the  style  is  strong 
(see  p.  68);  but  in  the  dialogue  with  the  penitent  thief  it  is  almost 
entirely  lacking.  And  further  study  of  the  data  presented  by  Stanton 
himself  leads  to  the  impression  that  the  proofs  offered  are  too  subjective 
and  fail  to  substantiate  the  conclusions.  Thus,  while  Stanton  repudiates, 
and  rightly  repudiates,  any  mere  numerical  enumeration  of  the  occur- 
rences of  a  selected  list  of  "Lukan  characteristics,"  there  is  yet  a  certain 

1  V.  H.  Stanton,  The  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents,  II,  276-322. 

136 


67 

degree  of  weight  to  be  given  to  the  numerical  argument.  And  this  weight 
by  no  means  falls  exclusively  upon  the  side  of  the  Lukan  composition 
of  the  sections  above  named. 

The  facts  are  as  follows:  In  the  six  Markan  sections  (Luke  4:31-44; 
5:12-16,  17-26;  8:22-25,  26-39,  4°~56),  containing  63  verses  in  all, 
Stanton  notes  107  Lukan  characteristics,  an  average  of  i .  70  per  verse. 
In  some  of  these  sections  the  average  is  far  higher:  10  characteristics 
for  the  5  verses  of  Luke  5 : 12-16,  or  2  per  verse;  and  13  for  the  4  verses 
of  Luke  8:22-25,  or  3.25  per  verse.  But  of  the  four  sections  above 
which  he  denominates  Lukan,  the  4  verses  of  19:41-44  contain  but 
5  Lukan  characteristics,  an  average  of  i .  25  per  verse;  and  chapter  24, 
exclusive  of  the  Emmaus  narrative,  contains  29  verses  and  but  25  char- 
acteristics, or  0.86  per  verse.  The  remaining  section  of  the  chapter 
contains  in  23  verses  42  Lukan  characteristics,  or  i .  83  per  verse,  a 
figure  only  slightly  above  the  average.  The  two  remaining  sections 
contain  a  larger  proportion  of  Lukan  characteristics  (2  per  verse  in  the 
trial  before  Herod,  and  2 . 2  per  verse  in  the  dialogue  with  the  penitent 
thief),  but  even  so,  these  figures  are  not  remarkably  above  the  average, 
nor  as  large  as  in  at  least  one  of  the  Markan  sections  examined.1 

Certainly  then  Stanton's  conclusions  must  await  confirmation  from 
other  evidence,  and  cannot  be  made  to  offset  the  evidence  which  has  been 
adduced  in  our  previous  investigation  pointing  to  the  use  of  a  documen- 
tary source.  Even  were  the  proportion  of  Lukan  characteristics  far 
more  significant,  there  would  yet  remain  two  possibilities  aside  from  the 
use  of  the  oral  tradition,  either  the  employment  of  an  Aramaic  docu- 
ment which  the  evangelist  was  himself  translating,  or  the  use  of  a  docu- 
ment whose  style  more  nearly  resembled  the  evangelist's  own.  It  is 
therefore  evident  that  the  proportion  or  the  predominance  of  Lukan 
characteristics  can  have,  as  evidence,  but  corroborative  value. 

4.  Beside  the  problem  of  the  editorial  coloring  of  the  narrative  there 
must  be  placed  also  the  question  of  the  Semitic  tone  of  the  language.  On 
this  point,  Torrey2  has  shown  that  the  Greek  of  the  Third  Gospel 
is  not  by  any  means  the  spoken  vernacular  of  the  first  century,  but 
bears  all  the  marks  of  being  a  pure  translation-idiom,  the  product  of 
an  attempt  to  carry  over  into  an  alien  tongue  the  genius  and  idiom  of 
a  Semitic  speech,  whether  Aramaic  or  Hebrew.  In  addition  he  has 

1  Moreover,  at  least  two  other  sections  of  J — Luke  23:44-49;    23:50-54 — have 
a  proportion  of  two  characteristics  to  each  verse  of  J  materials. 

2  C.  C.  Torrey,  "The  Translations  Made  from  the  Original  Aramaic  Gospels," 
in  Studies  in  the  History  of  Religions,  Presented  to  C.  H.  Toy,  pp.  270-317. 

137 


68  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

demonstrated  of  the  first  two  chapters,  by  their  preponderance  of 
Semitic  idiom,  together  with  their  large  proportion  of  "Lukan  character- 
istics," that  they  must  have  been  translated  from  a  Hebrew  source  by 
the  third  evangelist;  and  for  the  rest  of  the  Gospel  he  seeks  to  prove  a 
similar  process.  We  must  therefore  inquire  what  is  the  extent  and  the 
significance  of  the  Semitic  idiom  in  the  materials  of  the  Third  Gospel  now 
under  discussion. 

As  the  basis  of  this  examination  we  cannot  do  better  than  to  make 
use  of  the  list  of  "  Aramaisms"  set  forth  by  Wellhausen,1  checking  up  the 
frequency  of  their  occurrence  in  the  J  materials  and  comparing  it  with 
that  in  materials  clearly  derived  from  Mark,  and  that  in  the  infancy 
narratives,  equally  clearly  derived  from  a  Semitic  original.  Such  an 
investigation  reveals  two  things:  first,  that  the  Semitic  coloring  of  the 
J  materials  is  strongest  in  the  discourse  sections,  ranging  from  2\ 
occurrences  per  verse  in  the  Farewell  Discourse,  and  2\  in  the  Apoca- 
lyptic Discourse,  to  2§  per  verse  in  the  brief  discourse  sections  Luke 
19:41-44  and  Luke  23:27-31;  and  second,  that  in  the  remainder  of  the 
J  materials  it  is  seldom  much  stronger  than  in  contiguous  sections  of 
Markan  materials.  Exceptions  to  this  latter  statement  are  the  sections 
Luke  22:39-53  (tne  ag°nv>  and  the  arrest  of  Jesus)  and  24:13-35  (the 
Emmaus  appearance),  where  the  verses  assigned  to  J  contain  respectively 
2^  and  2\  Semitisms  per  verse.  The  remaining  materials  of  J,  how- 
ever, contain,  in  99  verses,  153  Aramaisms,  or  1.55  per  verse.  This 
figure  is  very  close  to  that  for  the  Markan  materials  of  chapter  20, 
where  there  are  61  Aramaisms  in  42  verses,  or  1.45  per  verse;  but  it 
is  considerably  less  than  the  proportion  for  the  infancy  narratives,  which 
is  2.52  per  verse.  However,  since  the  materials  of  Luke  20  are  largely 
discourse,  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  J  materials  are  rather  more  strongly 
Semitic  in  tone  than  are  the  Markan  materials  of  corresponding  character. 
In  the  editorial  sections,  however,  the  proportion  of  Aramaisms  is  very 
small,  only  0.90  per  verse.  Table  III  gives  the  figures  derived  from  the 
foregoing  data. 

The  significance  of  this  Semitic  coloring  it  is  difficult  to  estimate 
truly.  On  the  one  hand,  the  third  evangelist  presents  himself,  in  the 
preface  to  his  Gospel  and  in  the  latter  portion  of  the  Acts,  as  one  who  can 
write  fluent  and  idiomatic  Greek.  So  too  in  the  introductory  and  con- 
cluding verses  of  the  successive  sections  of  the  Passion-narrative  (Luke 
19:47-48;  20:1,9,19-20,26-27,39-40,45;  21:1,5,37-38;  22:1-7, 
14,  23,  39,  54,  66;  23:1,  24-25),  where,  it  maybe  supposed,  the  editorial 

1  J.  Wellhausen,  Einleitung  in  die  drei  ersten  Evangelien,  pp.  15-25. 

138 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE 


69 


hand  is  most  likely  to  appear,  the  proportion  of  Semitisms  is  low,  but 
30  in  31  verses,  or  nearly  i  per  verse.  This  suggests  that  the  evange- 
list can  hardly  be  responsible  for  the  Semitic  coloring  of  the  language; 
but  Plummer  has  pointed  out1  that  in  some  similar  sections  in  the  Markan 
materials  of  Luke  the  Lukan  version  has  a  more  strongly  Semitic  tone 
than  the  corresponding  Markan  language.  This  is  due,  however,  to 
the  recurrence  of  one  or  two  lections  (eyevero,  /cat  idov,  auros  in  the 
nominative)  which  the  evangelist  has  carried  over  from  other  sources 
or  from  his  Greek  Bible  and  has  made  his  own;  hi  general  we  cannot 

TABLE  in 


Number 
of  Verses 

Number 
of  Aramaisms 

Proportion 
per  Verse 

Editorial  sections  of  Passion-  narrative  

21 
128 
42 
9 
17 
13 
23 
9-5 
99 

19 
323 
61 

24 
38 
28 
55 

21 
153 

O.QO 
2.52 

1-45 
2.66 
2.23 
2-15 
2-39 

2.21 

1-55 

Infancy  narratives  

Markan  narratives  (in  Luke  20)  

Discourses  io°4i~44*   23*27—31 

Apocalyptic  Discourse  (J  verses) 

Farewell  Discourse 

Ernmaus  narrative 

The  agony  and  arrest  narrative   . 

Remainder  of  J  materials  .        

attribute  more  than  a  minimum  of  Semitisms  to  the  third  evangelist  or 
to  the  vernacular  Greek,  which  was  his  native  tongue.  If  this  be  true, 
the  fact  that  the  J  materials  appear  to  have  a  stronger  Semitic  coloring 
than  the  Markan,  although  not  so  strong  as  that  of  the  infancy  narra- 
tives, would  suggest  that  here  the  third  evangelist  is  employing  materials 
which  originated  in  a  Semitic  milieu,  but  very  likely  lay  before  him  in  a 
Greek  translation. 

5.  In  conclusion  we  must  place  a  definite  estimate  upon  the  data 
presented  in  the  preceding  pages.  As  a  first  consideration  it  must  be 
remarked  that  considerations  of  style  are  too  varied,  as  a  general  rule, 
to  be  reduced  to  system  and  brought  into  evidence  to  prove  literary 
unity  or  composition.  So  Bacon  argues,  in  a  critique  of  Torrey's  investi- 
gations into  the  sources  of  Acts,2  that  the  editorial  methods  of  the  ancient 
writer  were  such  that  it  is  impossible  to  argue  from  homogeneity  of 
style  to  homogeneity  of  source.  This  contention  has  much  of  truth; 
but  it  does  not,  and  cannot,  carry  with  it  the  converse  proposition  that  a 

1  A.  Plummer,  St.  Luke,  pp.  xlix-1. 

2  B.  W.  Bacon,  "More  Philological  Criticism  of  Acts,"  American  Journal  of  The- 
ology, XXII  (1918),  17. 

139 


70  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

marked  diversity  of  style,  especially  if  it  lie  deeper  than  the  language  of 
the  redactor,  does  not  furnish  evidence  at  least  corroborative  of  the  theory 
of  diversity  of  source.  True  it  is  also,  as  Ropes  has  pointed  out  (loc. 
cit.),  that,  with  true  literary  instinct,  the  third  evangelist  has  frequently 
introduced  considerable  variety  of  expression  hi  to  his  sources;  but  when 
such  variety  is  found  to  coincide  largely  with  other  indications  of  diver- 
sity of  source,  it  must  be  attributed  rather  to  this  latter  factor  than  to 
the  hand  of  the  editor. 

Therefore,  since  there  appears  evidence  of  peculiarities  of  vocabulary, 
of  individualities  of  style,  of  stronger  Aramaic  coloring,  to  support  our 
previous  hypothesis  of  the  independence  of  the  J  materials,  and  since 
the  proportion  of  Lukan  characteristics  is  not  significantly  greater  than 
in  other  passages  where  the  evangelist  was  quite  certainly  following  a 
source,  it  may  safely  be  asserted  that  the  evidence  of  the  literary  form 
of  the  J  materials  also  favors  our  previous  deduction  that  they  are 
derived  from  a  distinct  non-Markan  source. 

III.      THOUGHT  AND  VIEWPOINT 

In  general  the  J  materials  accord  well  with  the  viewpoint  and  the- 
ology of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  as  a  whole;  but  in  details  there  are  enough 
slight  variations  from  the  thought  of  the  rest  of  the  Lukan  writings  to 
be  significant,  and  a  brief  study  of  the  whole  thought  of  the  J  materials 
may  not  be  amiss. 

i.  World-view. — In  general  the  J  materials  share  the  dualistic  world- 
view  of  the  rest  of  the  synoptic  literature;  but  this  theoretical  dualism 
is  largely  offset  by  a  practical  common-sense  view  of  worldly  events  that 
approximates  monism.  God  is  not  prominent  in  the  materials.  He  is 
looked  upon  as  the  source  of  blessings  and  so  is  thanked  (19:37;  23: 
47;  24:53),  and  in  particular  is  regarded  as  the  ultimate  source  of  the 
messianic  deliverance  of  Israel  (22:70;  23:35),  and  he  is  also  regarded 
as  righteous  and  as  judge  of  the  righteousness  of  men  (23:40;  24:19). 
Angels  are  represented  as  messengers  of  Christ  to  men  (24: 23;  cf.  24:4), 
and,  in  a  passage  not  certainly  belonging  to  J  (20:36),  as  enjoying  bliss 
in  heaven. 

The  world  is  under  the  dominion  of  the  powers  of  evil,  more  or  less 
fully  (22:53),  but  Satan,  the  tempter  and  persecutor  of  the  righteous 
(22 : 31),  is  subject  to  God's  behest  as  in  the  early  chapters  of  Job.  There 
is  no  mention  of  demons  as  active  in  the  world. 

God's  power  in  the  world  has  been  manifest  through  Jesus  in  miracles 
(23 : 8;  22:51);  but  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  named,  and  the  only  possible 

140 


71 

reference  to  it  is  vague  (24:49)  and  depends  upon  other  portions  of  the 
Third  Gospel  for  its  interpretation. 

2.  Christology. — In  accord  with  the  practical  world- view  of  the  ma- 
terials, the  emphasis,  in  describing  the  person  of  Jesus,  is  placed  upon  his 
humanity.  This  is  the  assumption  involved  in  all  the  details  of  the  story 
of  his  arrest,  torture,  and  death,  and  more  explicitly  stated  in  his  appear- 
ance in  the  form  of  the  Servant  (22 : 27,  37),  in  the  defeat  of  his  desire  to 
eat  the  Passover  (22 : 15),  and  hi  the  omission  of  his  agonized  expectation 
of  arrest  related  by  the  other  synoptists  (cf.  22:39).  The  title  Son  of 
Man  is  rare  (21:36;  22:48;  24:7).  Of  Jesus'  divine  origin  there  is 
little  reflection;  he  occasionally  refers  to  God  in  the  words  "my  Father" 
(22:29;  23:4-6;  24:49),  but  he  refuses  to  claim  a  peculiar  divine  son- 
ship  (22 : 70,  a  verse  which  the  evangelist  does  convert  into  a  claim  by  the 
sentence  which  follows,  see  p.  45).  His  divine  destiny  is  hardly  more  hi 
view;  he  suffers  to  attain  "glory"  (24:26,  probably  a  reference  to  his 
appointment  as  apocalyptic  Messiah)  and  to  obtain  the  power  of  for- 
giving sins  (24:47),  and  he  will  be  the  Judge  and  King  in  the  new  age 
(21:36;  22:29). 

Of  divine  function  upon  earth  there  are  the  slightest  traces:  upon 
the  cross  he  proleptically  assumes  the  function  of  judgment  (23:43), 
and  previously  he  appears  as  a  mediator  of  divine  gifts  to  men  (22 : 29). 
The  mission  of  Jesus  is  represented  chiefly  as  one  of  teaching  and  of 
announcing  the  Kingdom  (19:47;  21:37;  23:5;  24:19);  it  is  this  that 
lies  behind  the  taunt  of  his  tormentors,  "Prophesy!"  (22:64)  and  it  is 
the  failure  to  act  upon  his  warning  and  thus  escape  the  dominion  of 
Satan  that  calls  forth  his  prophecies  of  disaster  to  Jerusalem,  who  "knew 
not  the  time  of  her  visitation"  (19:42-44)  and  could  reject  his  appeal  "in 
the  green  wood"  (23:31).  These  two  latter  passages  incline  toward 
a  mission  of  saving  men  from  the  power  of  Satan,  such  as  Mark  expressed 
in  his  picture  of  Jesus  as  a  miracle-worker;  but  there  is  little  further 
emphasis  upon  this  side,  save  hi  the  address  to  the  penitent  thief  (23 :43). 

Jesus'  function  is  principally  regarded  as  being  that  of  a  future 
Messiah,  who  is  to  come  apocalyptically  from  heaven  to  establish  the 
Kingdom.  The  presentation  of  this  view  is  one  of  the  main  interests  of 
the  J  source.  It  is  set  forth  explicitly  in  the  resurrection-narratives 
(24: 25-27,  44-46),  and  implied  in  the  promise  of  thrones  to  the  Twelve 
(22:30)  and  of  a  place  at  the  court  of  the  Son  of  Man  (21:36).  It 
seems  implied,  also,  in  the  idea  of  his  exaltation  to  heaven  (23:42-43; 
24:26),  which  would  be  a  necessary  step  in  raising  a  human  being  to 
such  an  office.  It  is  involved,  again,  hi  a  decided  polemic  against  the 

141 


72  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

idea  of  a  national  Messiah  as  a  warring  hero,  which  is  definitely  rejected 
(24:21);  the  messianic  function,  with  a  revolutionary  interpretation, 
is  attributed  to  him  by  his  enemies;  but  it  is  shown  by  the  testimony  of 
Roman  procurator  and  centurion,  of  Jewish  prince  and  bandit,  to  be 
foolish  and  mistaken  (22:66;  23:2,4,5,14,22,35,37,39).  One  passage 
only  swerves  from  this  viewpoint,  that  of  the  acclamation  of  Jesus  as  Son 
of  David  and  his  acceptance  of  the  title  (19 : 37-40) ;  but  this  is  probably 
a  historical  account  which  the  author  has  adopted  simply  to  prove  his 
more  general  point  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  without  thought  of  the  type 
of  messianic  function  it  suggests,  and  its  significance  must  be  taken 
proleptically  (cf.  24:26,  44,  46);  for  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom 
is  still  future  (22:29;  23:42-43).  The  Pauline  title  6  Kuptos,  not  infre- 
quently employed  by  Luke  also,  is  rare  in  the  J  materials  (22:61;  24 : 34) , 
and  only  in  verses  quite  possibly  editorial  in  their  present  form. 

The  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  are  the  central  interest  and 
raison  d'etre  of  the  J  source;  but  the  significance  attached  to  his  death  is 
not  large.  It  is  represented  as  necessary,  according  to  prophecy  (22:37; 
24:7,  26-27,  32,  46),  apparently  as  a  step  in  the  installation  of  Jesus  as 
the  apocalyptic  Messiah  (which  recalls  the  Pauline  expression  of  Phil. 
2:9);  but  the  only  hint  of  the  Atonement  is  the  phrase  "  remission  of 
sins  in  his  name"  (24:47).  The  conception  of  the  resurrection-body  of 
Jesus  is  strongly  literalistic;  its  physical  objectivity  is  strongly  insisted 
upon,  by  the  story  of  the  empty  tomb  (24:3,  23,  24),  by  the  explicit 
assertion  that  he  was  not  a  ghost  (24:39,  42),  by  the  proof  that  he  could 
eat  food  (24:41-43),  and  by  the  use  of  various  purely  physical  descrip- 
tions of  his  activities  (24:15-16,  30,  52).  At  the  same  time  this  body 
would  seem  to  have  been  of  a  rarified  substance;  for  he  could  vanish  or 
appear  at  will  (24:31,  34-36)  and  could  be  in  two  widely  separated  places 
at  just  about  the  same  time  (24:31,  34).  The  tradition  of  the  resur- 
rection on  the  third  day  is  followed  in  the  main  (24: 7,  21,  46),  but  there 
are  indications  also  of  the  notion  of  an  immediate,  if  not  a  spiritual, 
resurrection  (23:43;  24:26). 

3.  Eschatology. — The  eschatology  of  the  J  sections  is  restrained  and 
mild.  There  is,  of  course,  the  hope  of  the  Kingdom;  but  there  is  little 
reflection  of  a  final  world-conflict  between  God  and  Satan;  rather  is 
Satan  working  in  restive  submission  to  the  rule  of  God  already  (22:31). 
The  establishment  of  the  Kingdom  is  sometimes  represented  as  imminent; 
it  is  to  come  with  the  arrest  of  Jesus  before  his  next  meal  (22:18),  or 
at  the  latest  before  the  next  Passover  (22:16;  cf.  23:42-43),  and  the 
trials  of  its  citizens  are  practically  at  an  end  (22 : 29).  Of  disasters  pos- 

142 


73 

terior  to  the  time  of  Jesus  there  are  also  indications,  however:  the  per- 
secution of  the  early  church  is  predicted  hi  no  uncertain  terms  (21 : 12-19; 
22 136) ;  but  their  survival  unharmed  is  also  indicated  (21 : 18-19;  22 138), 
and  apparently  their  deliverance  is  thought  of  as  supernatural  (21:28). 
More  interesting  to  the  author  is  the  idea  of  the  punishment  of  Judaism 
by  the  fall  of  its  capital  (19:41-44;  21:20-24;  23:28-31,  48),  which 
plays  an  especially  prominent  part.  The  part  to  be  played  by  Jesus 
in  the  future  age  is  vague;  he  is  to  be  the  ruler  of  the  new  Kingdom 
(19:38;  21:36;  22:29-30;  23:42-43),  but  his  part  in  its  establish- 
ment is  not  described.  The  polemic  against  a  national  revolutionary 
idea  of  the  Messiah  involves  a  corresponding  rejection  of  the  purely  ma- 
terial idea  of  the  new  Kingdom. 

4.  Salvation. — The  word  x&pts  does  not  appear  hi  the  J  sections; 
its  place  in  the  Pauline  theology  is  here  partly  taken,  however,  by  the 
concept  of  salvation  by  the  power  of  Jesus  or  of  his  name  (24:47),  which 
is  prefigured  in  Jesus'  prayer  for  Peter  (22:32)  and  pardon  of  the  thief 
(23:43).    Salvation  from  physical  ills  is  included  in  the  same  exercise 
of  power  (21 : 15,  28).     The  Pauline  words  Triorts  and  Trioreuco  are  almost 
equally  rare  and  are  not  used  in  a  clearly  ethical  sense,  though  such  might 
be  read  into  them  in  the  case  of  Peter  (22:32)  and  of  the  disciples  after 
the  crucifixion  (24:25).     Faith,  hi  the  sense  of  a  personal  dependence 
upon  Jesus,  may  also  be  exemplified  in  the  penitent  thief  (23:42).    In 
24 : 47  the  necessity  of  repentance  is  implied.    There  is  no  mention  of  any 
sacramental  means  of  salvation. 

The  ethical  side  of  salvation  receives  more  emphasis.  There  is 
frequent  warning  against  temptation  (21:34;  22:31,  40,  46),  approval 
of  prayer,  by  admonition  and  by  the  example  of  Jesus  (21:36;  22:32, 
40,  41,  46),  and  a  like  approval  of  praise  (19:37-40;  24:53).  Love,  hi 
its  practical  expression,  is  enjoined  (22:25-27).  But  of  the  "asceti- 
cism" of  Luke  the  only  echoes  are  the  depiction  of  the  heavenly  state 
as  without  marriage  (20 : 35)  and  the  warning  against  debauchery  (21 : 34). 

In  the  discussion  of  marriage  in  the  new  age  it  is  hinted  that  the 
future  state  of  men  will  be  divinity,  since  they  by  resurrection  come  to 
share  the  incorruptible  essence  of  God  (20:36),  but  this  passage  is  not 
certainly  a  part  of  the  J  materials. 

5.  Society. — The  relation  of  Christianity  to  Judaism  is  represented  as 
close  and  the  standpoint  is  even  particularistic.    The  gentile  kings  are 
mentioned  as  horrible  examples  (22: 25-26),  and  the  only  citizens  of  the 
Kingdom  thought  of  are  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  (22:30).    The  Law 
and  the  Temple  are  approved:    the  Law  is  observed  by  the  women 

143 


74  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

(22:56),  and  Jesus  is  quoted  as  desiring  to  keep  the  Passover  (22:15), 
while  the  Temple  is  the  scene  of  his  activities  and  of  his  disciples'  (19:47; 
21:37;  24:53).  The  Jewish  people  are  regarded  in  a  friendly  light 
as  favorable  to  Jesus  (19:37,  48;  21:38;  23:27,  35,  48;  24:18;  cf. 
20:19;  22:6),  and  there  is  a  notion  that  his  ministry  among  them  in 
Jerusalem  continued  for  some  little  time  (19:47,  r6  Ka0'  -fujikpav;  21:37, 
r&s  i)/icpas;  22:39,  jcciTcb  TO  €0os;  22:53,  Ka^  'tiv*pw>  but  this  idea  is 
carried  over  into  the  editorial  sections,  20:1;  22:1,  2,  7).  The  Jewish 
rulers,  however,  are  regarded  as  enemies  and  represented  as  hostile  to 
Jesus  (19:47;  23:2,  5,  10,  13,  25,  35;  24:20).'  These  are  always  the 
"high  priests,"  and  the  earlier  antagonists,  the  Pharisees,  appear  only 
at  the  triumphal  entry  (19:39).  Of  the  "  universalism "  of  Luke  there 
is  little — the  command  to  preach  to  all  nations  (24:47,  but  perhaps  edito- 
rial) and  the  admission  of  the  outcast  thief  to  the  Kingdom  (23:43). 

The  disciples  are  presented,  as  by  the  rest  of  the  Third  Gospel, 
in  a  favorable  light.  Their  enthusiastic  outburst  is  defended  (19 : 39-40) 
and  they  are  promised  a  position  at  the  court  of  the  Son  of  Man  (21 :36). 
There  is  a  considerable  interest  in  the  larger  body  of  disciples  (19:37-40; 
24:10,  33);  but  the  Twelve  are  exalted.  Their  actual  prominence  is 
recognized  in  the  warning  not  to  abuse  their  position  (22:26),  and  they 
are  promised  a  position  of  high  authority  (22:28-30).  Peter  receives 
especial  authority  as  the  foundation  of  the  church  (22:32)  and  the  first 
to  see  the  risen  Lord  (24:34),  and  the  interest  in  him  appears  elsewhere 
in  especial  connections  of  him  with  Jesus'  career  (22:8,  55-62).  The 
Lukan  "desire  to  spare  the  disciples"  appears  in  the  excuse  made  for 
their  failure  to  watch  (22:45). 

6.  Divergences  from  the  viewpoint  of  Luke. — In  the  foregoing  viewpoint 
a  few  divergences  from  the  thought  general  in  the  Third  Gospel  may  be 
noticed.  Chief  of  these  are  the  eschatology  and  the  Lukan  universal- 
ism.  In  the  case  of  the  latter,  the  evangelist's  broad  interest,  which 
includes  the  Gentiles,  gives  way  to  Jewish  particularism;  Jews  and  Jews 
only,  save  for  the  figure  of  Pilate,  are  concerned  in  the  narrative,  and 
the  only  members  of  the  Kingdom  mentioned  are  the  Twelve  Tribes. 
At  the  very  conclusion  of  the  Gospel,  it  is  true,  the  commission  to  preach 
to  all  nations  is  given;  but  this,  the  only  point  at  which  the  final  narra- 
tives parallel  the  other  synoptics,  is  just  the  point  which  the  evangelist 
must  have  added  from  his  general  knowledge  of  the  Christian  movement 

'This  notion,  however,  appears  in  the  editorial  sections  of  Luke's  Passion- 
narrative  (20:1,  19,  20,  26;  22:2,  5,  52,  66)  and  in  the  Markan  version  as  well.  It 
cannot,  therefore,  be  supposed  peculiar  to  J. 

144 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  75 

if  it  did  not  stand  in  his  source,  and  the  omission  of  the  similar  phrase  in 
the  Apocalyptic  Discourse  (cf.  Mark  13:  10;  Matt.  24:  14)  is  significant. 
We  may  therefore  conclude  that,  as  against  the  Hellenistic  universalism 
of  the  evangelist,  the  source  was  particularistic. 

The  eschatological  interest  of  the  J  materials  is  rather  in  the  afflictions 
of  the  disciples  and  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  than  hi  the  final 
world-calamity,  of  which  it  gives  but  the  merest  implications.  The 
rest  of  the  Third  Gospel,  however,  contains  no  such  specific  descriptions 
of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  (cf.  13:34-35),  and  its  eschatological  interest 
is  in  the  coming  of  the  apocalyptic  Messiah  (17:22-37;  12:41-46; 
21:27;  22:69)  and  of  the  final  catastrophe  (12:54-56;  21:29-32,  etc). 

Other  lesser  diversities  also  appear,  of  greater  or  less  significance. 
One  of  these  is  the  very  minor  attention  paid  to  Satan  and  to  demons  and 
spirits,  which  figure  quite  largely  in  other  portions  of  the  Gospel.  In 
the  Christology  the  Lukan  title  6  Kuptos  and  the  representation  of  Jesus 
as  a  wonder-worker  are  reduced  to  a  place  of  minor  significance.  Against 
the  Lukan  representation  of  the  resurrection  as  occurring  on  the  "  third 
day"  (9:22;  18  :  33)  ,*  there  is  also  the  idea  that  Jesus  passed  immediately 
into  glory  (23  :  43  ;  24  :  26),  and  that  his  next  meal  should  be  in  the  King- 
dom (22:16,  18),  which  may  be  the  original  notion  of  the  J  source. 
Again,  there  is  practically  no  reflection  of  the  "asceticism"  or  "Ebion- 
ism"  of  Luke,  and  small  reference  to  "grace"  or  to  "faith."  "Temp- 
tation," however,  is  somewhat  prominent,  as  in  the  Galilean  document 
(4:1-13;  6:47-49;  7:23;  cf.  8:13),  and  the  J  materials  share  with  G 
the  exaltation  of  Peter  also  (22:31-32;  5:1-11). 

Thus,  while  the  viewpoint  is  in  general  the  same  as  that  of  the  rest 
of  the  Gospel,  there  are  some  features  of  the  thought  of  the  J  material, 
as  of  its  language  and  style,  which  show  its  independence  of  the  mind  of 
the  evangelist,  even  while  he  has  impressed  himself  upon  it  to  some 
extent.  These  facts  are  sufficient  to  confirm  entirely  our  earlier  con- 
clusion that  the  J  materials  constituted  an  independent  source,  which 
the  third  evangelist  wove  into  his  narrative  of  the  close  of  Jesus'  career. 

IV.      THE   NARRATIVES   OF   LUKE    19:1-27 

A  word  must  be  added  regarding  the  first  part  of  the  nineteenth 
chapter,  of  which  it  at  first  seemed  that  we  must  take  account  in  our 
description  of  J.  These  two  sections  have  already  been  set  aside  from 


representation  appears  also  in  the  J  narratives  (24:7,  21,  46);  but  at 
least  one  of  these  verses  (24:21)  is  so  awkwardly  introduced  as  to  appear  an  inter- 
polation, and  a  second  (24:46)  occurs  in  an  important  summary  of  the  mission  of  the 
early  disciples  and  might  well  be  editorial,  therefore. 

145 


76  HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC  STUDIES 

J  (see  p.  33)  on  the  ground  of  their  thought,  the  idea  of  repentance  in 
the  former  and  the  parabolic  form  of  teaching  in  the  latter  being  more 
closely  akin  to  the  Perean  source  than  to  J.  A  few  points  of  style  and 
language  maybe  noted  which  serve  to  confirm  this  impression:  d/iaprcoX6s 
(19:7)  is  frequent  hi  P  (6  times)  and  found  but  once  in  J;  diayoyybfav 
(19:7)  occurs  elsewhere  in  Luke  only  in  P  (15:2);  dov\os  (vss.  13, 
15,  17,  22)  is  frequent  in  P  (14  times)  but  rare  in  other  parts  of  Luke 
(5  times,  and  3  times  in  Acts) ;  TO  dTroXcoXos  (vs.  10)  is  found  only  in  P 
(4  times);  k^avkpxo^i  (vs.  15)  occurs  only  in  10:35;  cXdxioros  (vs.  17) 
in  12: 26  and  16:10;  0epl£ co  (vss.  21,  22)  in  12:24;  TroXmjs  (19:14)^1 15:15 
and  once  in  Acts;  irpeapda  (vs.  14)  in  14:32;  TO.  vTrapxovra  in  the  sense 
"property"  (vs.  8)  occurs  6  times  in  P,  once  in  G,  and  once  in  Acts; 
birodi-xonai,  (vs.  6)  once  in  P  and  once  in  Acts;  and  0«j>eo>  in  the  sense 
of  "summon"  (vs.  15)  twice  in  P  and  3  times  in  Acts.  The  phrase 
utds  (or  6vyaTJip)  'AjSpadju  (vs.  9)  is  also  characteristic  of  P  (13:16;  cf. 
16:22-24). 

This  evidence  seems  sufficient  to  establish  the  fact  that  the  relation- 
ships of  Luke  19:1-27  are  rather  with  the  Perean  than  with  the  Jeru- 
salem source. 


146 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  LITERARY  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  JERUSALEM  SOURCE 

I.     UNITY 

The  demonstration  of  the  literary  unity  of  any  writing  against  all 
possible  criticisms  and  objections  is,  in  general,  a  difficult,  if  not  an 
impossible,  task;  for  few  are  the  works  that  possess  either  a  mathematical 
interior  interdependence  or  a  superficial  stamp  of  homogeneity.  In 
most  works  it  is  possible  to  distinguish  different  subjects  and  to  demon- 
strate that  with  diversity  of  subject  there  goes  also  a  diversity  of  treat- 
ment, for  literature  is  a  living  thing  and  can  hardly  be  reduced  to  rote. 
A  mechanical  demonstration  of  literary  unity,  therefore,  must  nearly 
always  fail,  and  to  establish  the  unity  of  a  document  it  must  be  suffi- 
cient to  show  that  there  are  few  valid  arguments  against  that  unity. 

We  may  discuss  two  problems  as  regards  the  unity  of  J:  first,  whether 
the  materials  separate  themselves  into  a  number  of  disparate  blocks; 
and,  second,  whether  any  of  the  details  which  have  been  ascribed  to  the 
J  source  are  not,  in  fact,  a  part  of  it. 

i.  It  is  first  necessary  to  inquire  whether  the  material  falls,  by 
subject-matter,  or  from  other  indications,  into  blocks,  and  if  so,  what 
significance  is  to  be  attached  to  these.  Upon  examination  we  find  the 
following  distinct  groupings  of  material:  an  Apocalyptic  Discourse, 
a  narrative  of  Jesus'  entry  into  the  city  with  attached  sayings,  a  narra- 
tive of  the  Last  Supper,  a  Farewell  Discourse,  a  narrative  of  Jesus' 
arrest,  trial,  and  death,  a  narrative  of  the  burial  of  Jesus  (strangely 
fragmentary  in  our  remaining  J  materials),  to  which  may  be  coupled  the 
narrative  of  the  empty  tomb,  and  narratives  of  the  appearance  of  the 
risen  Jesus.  Does  this  grouping  imply  a  diversity  of  sources  ? 

It  must  first  be  observed  that  the  groups  mentioned  are  not  more 
distinct  than  the  changes  of  subject  require:  there  are  no  marked  breaks 
(though  the  Apocalyptic  Discourse  and  the  resurrection  appearances 
are  not  closely  connected  with  the  rest),  nor  are  there  disagreements 
between  the  groups  nor  overlapping  nor  duplication  in  the  narratives. 
The  few  disagreements  observed  in  the  preceding  chapter  (pp.  72f.,  74) 
are  not  radical,  and  seem  to  bear  equally  against  the  interior  unity  of 
these  groups.  If  then  there  are  no  disagreements  or  breaks  between  the 
blocks,  but  they  can  be  made  to  form  a  smooth  narrative,  it  is  simpler 

147]  77 


78  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

to  suppose  that  they  came  from  a  single  source,  in  accord  with  the  famil- 
iar canon  of  economy  of  hypotheses,  than  to  needlessly  multiply  docu- 
ments for  whose  distinct  existence  there  is  no  evidence. 

In  the  second  place  the  transpositions  and  corrections  of  the  Markan 
order,  as  it  has  already  been  argued  (pp.  27-28),  involve  the  conclusion 
that  the  materials  affected  by  each  correction  should  have  stood  in  a 
continuous  narrative.  These  transpositions,  therefore,  serve  to  link 
up  several  pairs  of  narratives,  and  even  some  of  the  larger  groups. 
The  location  of  the  Strife  of  the  Disciples  (22:24-27)  in  its  present 
position  serves  to  show  that  the  narrative  of  the  Last  Supper  and  the 
Farewell  Discourse  bore  some  relation  to  one  another  in  the  source. 
The  fixing  of  the  departure  from  the  upper  room  after  the  warning 
to  Peter  seems  also  to  connect  the  Farewell  Discourse  with  the 
narrative  of  Jesus'  arrest  and  death.  Within  the  latter  group  there 
are  a  number  of  transpositions  which  serve  largely  to  connect  its 
members  (see  p.  24). 

A  third  indication  of  unity  is  the  presence  of  ideas  common  to  different 
parts  of  the  source,  which  serve  to  link  the  group  together.  The  nar- 
rative of  the  arrival  of  Jesus  at  Jerusalem  shares  (19:41-44)  with  the 
Apocalyptic  Discourse  (21 : 20-24)  and  with  the  central  narrative  (23 : 27- 
31,  48)  the  interest  in  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  The  Apocalyptic  Discourse 
also  shares  with  the  Farewell  Discourse  the  description  of  future  sufferings 
of  the  disciples  (21:12;  22:36-37),  against  which  they  are  to  defend 
themselves  (21:15;  22:3^),  and  also  the  conception  of  the  disciples  as 
prominent  in  the  Kingdom,  "set  before"  its  King  (21:34;  22:30). 
Peter's  denial  is  foretold  in  the  Farewell  Discourse  (22:31-32)  and  de- 
scribed in  the  central  narrative  (22:56-62),  and  the  mention  of  a  sword 
in  the  Farewell  Discourse  (22:36,  38)  is  very  surely  reflected  in  the  cen- 
tral narrative  (22:50),  although  Jesus'  attitude  is  described  as  changed 
(22:51).  These  links,  if  significant,  will  connect  for  us  the  initial  nar- 
rative, the  central  narrative,  the  Apocalyptic  Discourse,  and  the  Fare- 
well Discourse. 

The  notion  that  Jesus'  ministry  in  Jerusalem  was  very  successful 
(19:37,  48;  21:38;  23:27,  35,  48)  is  also  reflected  in  the  resurrection- 
narratives  (24:18).  The  resurrection-narratives  also  appear  to  share 
with  the  Farewell  Discourse  the  idea  of  the  primacy  of  Peter  (22:32; 
24:34),  and  with  the  central  narrative  and  the  narrative  of  the  Last 
Supper  the  thought  that  Jesus  passed  immediately  from  the  cross  into 
glory  (22:16,  18;  23:43;  24:26;  see  p.  72).  But  the  resurrection- 
narratives  are  connected  with  the  tomb-narratives  by  the  mention  of  the 

148 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  79 

visit  of  the  women  (24: 2-9,  22).  Within  the  central  narrative  the  story 
moves  logically  with  continual  interdependence.  A  few  of  the  remoter 
dependences  may  be  noted:  the  question  of  the  trial,  ct  av  el  '6  xpwr^s 
(22:67),  is  repeated  in  irony  at  the  cross  (23:35,  39)  and  forms  the 
basis  of  the  charge  of  treason  in  the  Roman  court  (23 : 2,  5) ;  the  desertion 
of  the  Twelve  is  implied  at  various  points  (22:31,  54,  58-60;  23:49), 
as  is  the  hostility  of  the  "high  priests"  (19:47;  20:20,  26;  23:2,  5,  10, 
13,35;  24:20).  These  links  of  common  ideas,  if  significant,  will  serve 
to  support  the  unity  of  the  J  materials. 

A  fourth  line  of  proof  of  the  unity  of  the  materials  may  be  found  in 
the  presence  of  turns  of  expression  and  words  which  are  peculiarly 
characteristic  of  the  materials  and  are  present  throughout,  or  at  least  in 
different  sections.  Of  the  37  characteristic  words  of  J  (those  marked 
f  in  the  list,  Appendix  II),  14  are  found  only  in  the  J  materials  of  the 
central  narrative  and  the  Farewell  Discourse,  and  this  group  of  materials 
shares  5  words  with  the  Apocalyptic  Discourse,  6  with  the  narrative  of 
the  resurrection  appearances,  3  with  the  introductory  narratives,  and  2 
with  the  burial  narratives;  that  is,  it  is  connected  with  the  other  groups 
by  a  total  of  16  words.  The  Apocalyptic  Discourse  is  connected  also 
with  the  introductory  narratives  by  2  words  and  with  the  resurrection- 
narratives  by  2  words;  that  is,  it  is  connected  with  the  other  groups  by 
a  total  of  9  words.  The  narrative  of  the  resurrection  appearances  is 
connected  with  the  introductory  narratives  by  3  words  and  with  the 
burial  narratives  by  5  words,  in  addition  to  its  other  connections  with 
the  Apocalyptic  Discourse  (2  words)  and  with  the  central  narrative 
(6  words);  so  that  it  is  connected  with  the  other  narratives  by  16 
words.  The  connections  of  the  introductory  narratives  and  of  the  burial 
narratives  as  given  above  total  8  words  and  7  words,  respectively.  Thus 
the  test  of  language  common  to  the  various  sections  also  seems  to  indi- 
cate the  unity  of  the  J  source.  These  connections  are  indicated  upon  the 
accompanying  diagram  (p.  80). 

Against  the  unity  of  these  materials  may  be  urged  the  fact  that  the 
impersonal  use  of  eyevero,  which  is  rare  in  the  J  materials,  approximates 
the  normal  in  the  resurrection-narratives,  occurring  three  times  (24:15, 
30,  51);  but  TroXus,  which  is  characteristically  rare  in  the  J  materials, 
does  not  occur  at  all  in  the  resurrection-narratives;  so  that  the  previous 
exception  is  hardly  significant.  In  general,  also,  the  fact  that  a  consider- 
able number  of  characteristic  words  and  turns  of  style  can  be  gathered 
as  distinctive  of  the  whole  group  of  materials  seems  to  indicate  that  they 
possess  at  least  a  degree  of  homogeneity. 

149 


80 


HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 


Connection  formed  by  not  more  than  two  common  words 

Connection  formed  by  three  or  more  common  words 

==  Connection  formed  by  five  or  more  common  words 

DIAGRAM  OF  THE  CONNECTION  BETWEEN  DIVISIONS  OF  THE  PASSION-NARRATIVE 
BY  THE  OCCURRENCES  OF  THE  CHARACTERISTIC  WORDS 

Section  A.  The  Introductory  Narratives,  14  verses  (19:28,  37-44,  47-48;  20: 
34-36). 

Section  B.  The  Apocalyptic  Discourse,  17  verses. 

Section  C.  The  Last  Supper,  Farewell  Discourse,  and  Central  Narratives,  88  verses. 

Section  D.  Narratives  of  the  Tomb,  13^  verses  (23:50 — 24:100). 

Section  E.  Narratives  of  the  resurrection  appearances,  41  verses. 

Fifth,  a  more  delicate  test  of  the  unity  of  the  materials  may  be 
derived  from  their  style  and  language  by  an  examination  of  the  dis- 
tribution of  those  turns  of  style  which  are  supposedly  characteristic  of  the 
source  and  of  expressions  which  seem  to  hint  at  a  Semitic  origin.  Are 
they  equally  prevalent  throughout,  or  does  the  coloring  of  the  style  vary 
somewhat  in  different  portions  of  the  source?  This  test,  of  course, 
cannot  be  applied  with  mathematical  accuracy,  since  the  factors  of  lan- 
guage are  too  many  to  be  all  taken  account  of;  yet  a  decided  and  per- 
sistent diversity  hi  the  coloring  of  the  language  of  the  different  groups 
must  have  considerable  significance. 

150 


THE    SOURCES   OF   LUKE  8   PASSION-NARRATIVE 


81 


The  distribution  of  the  J  characteristics,  of  the  Aramaisms  listed 
by  Wellhausen,1  and  of  the  Lukan  characteristics  noted  by  Stanton,2 
is  presented  in  Table  IV,  which  gives  in  detail  the  number  of  occurrences 
in  each  section,  and  the  average  per  verse. 


TABLE  IV 


SECTIONS 
(J  VERSES  ONLY) 

NUMBER  OF  VERSES 

J  CHARACTERISTICS 

STANTON 

WELLHAUSEN 

Number  of 

Propor- 
tion per 
Verse 

Lukan 
Characteristics 

Aramaisms 

Words 
Marked 

Words 
Marked 

* 

lumber 

Propor- 
tion per 
Verse 

Number 

Propor- 
tion per 
Verse 

Introductory  narrative: 
19:28,37-40,47-48.... 
10:41—44 

7 

4 

2 

3 

2 
.  I 
0 
0 

2 

S 

2 
2 

I.I4 
2.00 
1.  00 

0.66 

8 
10 

i 
4 

I.I4 
2.50 
0.50 
i-33 

5 

I-2S 

20*  20    26 

2O"  34—  36 

Total 

16 
17 
8* 
13 

?! 

6* 
J5 

5 
4 

I* 

3 

5 
5 
14 
7 

2 

I 

9 
7 

0 

4 
3 

i 

II 

2O 
2 

'  8 

4 
4 

2 

4 

4 

i 

3 

2 

3 

0.87 

i-S3 
0.82 
1.69 

1.26 
0.80 
0-53 
i-i3 
1.30 

0.20 
1.50 
I  .OO 
0.84 

23 

38 
13 
28 

21 
12 
10 
27 

9 
14 
4 
6 

8 

1.44 
2.23 
i-53 
2-15 

2.21 

1.60 

1.82 
1.  80 

1.16 

2.80 

I.OO 
1.20 
2.28 

Apocalyptic  Discourse: 
21  :  12—38 

Last  Supper  narrative: 
22:8,  14—23 

8 
8 

10 

5 

2 

25 

5 
o 

7 
ii 

7 

0.94 
0.61 

1-05 
0.66 
0.30 
1.66 
0.64 
o.oo 
1-75 

2.20 
2.00 

Farewell  Discourse: 
22:  24—38                  .... 

Central  narrative: 

22:  3Q—  <3 

22:54-62  
22:6^—71 

23:  i—  16  

23'  18—2? 

23:  27—31 

23:  32—37 

23:  30—43 

23:46—40 

Total  

64 
*» 

34 

2 
10 

27 

6 

i 

0.96 

1.  60 
1.30 

72 

9 

7 

1.  10 

1.  80 
0.82 

in 
9 

12 

1-73 

1.  80 
1.41 

Burial  narrative: 

23  "  'CO—  ^6 

24:  i—  10                   .... 

Total           

i3l 

23 
8 
6 
4 

12 

13 

2 
0 

I 

7 

13 

4 

i 
o 

1.40 

1.30 
0.62 

0.16 

I.OO 

16 
42 

8 
4 

1.18 

1.83 

0.62 
i-33 

I.OO 

21 

55 

IO 

II 

8 

1-55 

2-39 
1-25 
1-83 

2.00 

Resurrection  narratives: 
24:13—3?   . 

24:  36—43.  . 

?4°  44—^10 

24:  5O-S3.  . 

Total                 

4i 
173 

16 
89 

18 
93 

0.83 
1-05 

59 
163 

i-4S 

1.14 

84 
3i8 

2-05 
1.82 

Total  for  all  J  

1  J.  Wellhausen,  EMeit.,  pp.  15-25. 

2  V.  H.  Stanton,  The  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents,  II,  287-90,  305-9.. 

151 


82 


HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 


Note  in  Table  V  the  proportions  for  the  larger  groups  into  which  the 
J  matter  appears  to  divide  itself: 

TABLE  V 


J  Characteristics 

Aramaisms 

Lukan 
Characteristics 

Introductory  narratives 

O  8? 

I    4.4. 

Apocalyptic  Discourse 

I    <\3 

2    33 

Last  Supper  narrative  .  . 

o  82 

I    ^ 

O   O4. 

Farewell  Discourse   ... 

i  60 

2   je 

o  61 

Central  narratives        ....       .             .    . 

o  06 

I    73 

I    IO 

Burial  narratives  

I    4.O 

I    SO 

I  06 

Resurrection  narratives-  

o  83 

2    <X 

I    4.1? 

A  study  of  these  figures  shows  that  there  is  no  possible  relation  between 
different  columns  to  be  discovered,  that  a  large  figure  in  one  column  is 
not  regularly  accompanied  by  either  a  large  or  a  small  figure  in  the  others. 
This  means  that  the  variety  of  the  literature  is  such  that  little  can  be 
determined  from  the  proportional  frequency  of  one  or  another  set  of 
stylistic  particulars  in  any  section  of  it.  A  few  conclusions  may  be 
drawn,  however. 

a)  The  proportion  of  Lukan  characteristics  listed  by  Stanton  is  hi 
no  one  of  the  groups  equal  to  that  of  the  earlier  Markan  sections  which 
he  lists.1    Here,  in  the  passages  4:31-44;   5:12-26;  8:22-56,  63  verses 
in  all,  there  are  107  Lukan  characteristics,  an  average  of  i .  70  character- 
istics per  verse.    None  of  the  groups  above  reaches  that  average.    There 
seems  to  be,  therefore,  no  reason  for  assigning  any  of  the  above-mentioned 
blocks  to  the  pen  of  the  evangelist. 

b)  A  high  proportion  of  Aramaisms  is,  in  the  main,  found  in  discourse 
sections.    Thus  the  figures  run:  19:41-44,  2.50  per  verse;  Apocalyptic 
Discourse,  2.23  per  verse;   Farewell  Discourse,  2.15  per  verse;   Luke 
23 : 27-31,  2 . 80  per  verse;  but  Luke  23 : 39-43,  i .  20  per  verse.    In  these 
sections  it  is  easily  explained  as  due  to  the  preservation  of  the  original 
form  of  the  saying  recorded. 

In  the  Apocalyptic  Discourse,  however,  it  should  be  noted  that 
together  with  the  high  proportion  of  Aramaisms  there  goes  a  low  pro- 
portion of  J  characteristics.  This  does  not  appear  in  the  summary 
given  above,  but  a  closer  examination  shows  that  there  are  but  a  small 
minority  of  the  words  truly  characteristic  of  J  and  that  the  majority  of 
the  words  so  listed  are  found  in  this  section  only  of  the  Lukan  writings. 


1  Stanton,  op.  cit.,  pp.  279-86. 


152 


83 

The  proportion  of  J  characteristics  (6  words  in  17  verses)  might  therefore 
be  given  as  o. 35,  a  very  low  figure.  This  would  suggest  that  the  Apoca- 
lyptic Discourse  was  distinct  from  the  rest  of  the  J  source,  and  it  may 
indeed  have  been  originally  a  small  independent  apocalypse  of  the  fall 
of  Jerusalem;  but  the  difference  in  subject-matter  will  account  in  part 
for  the  small  number  of  J  characteristics  found  in  it,  and  its  general 
agreement  with  the  remainder  of  the  J  materials  against  the  rest  of  the 
Lukan  apocalyptic  in  several  points,  particularly  the  emphasis  upon  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  would  indicate  that  it  must  have  been  incor- 
porated in  J  before  that  source  reached  the  evangelist.  In  no  other 
section  of  the  J  source  do  the  peculiar  words  largely  outnumber  the  more 
often  repeated  J  characteristics. 

The  only  other  section  where  the  Aramaic  coloring  is  strong  is  that 
of  the  narratives  of  the  resurrection  appearances  (24:13-53),  which  has 
an  average  of  2.05  Aramaisms  per  verse;  while  the  remainder  of  the  J 
materials,  aside  from  the  discourse  sections  enumerated  above,  has  an 
average  of  1.62  per  verse,  and  the  average  of  the  infancy  narratives  is 
only  2.52  per  verse.  This  certainly  suggests  that  the  concluding  narra- 
tives of  the  Gospel  were  derived  from  a  different  source  more  akin  to  the 
infancy  narratives;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  proportion  of  J  character- 
istics is  just  about  the  average  (without  an  undue  proportion  of  rare 
words) ,  and  it  has  already  been  shown  that  these  narratives  are  connected 
in  various  ways  with  the  rest  of  the  J  materials,  so  that  it  must  be  con- 
cluded that  they  were  a  part  of  the  J  source,  whatever  the  explanation 
of  the  large  proportion  of  Aramaisms  may  be.  It  should  also  be  noted 
that  a  similar  proportion  of  Aramaisms  (2.21)  is  found  in  a  section 
(22:39-53)  which  stands  in  the  midst  of  the  central  narrative  and 
which  is  connected  with  the  thread  of  the  story  of  J  by  cross-references 
and  by  the  demands  of  the  continuity  of  the  narrative;  so  that  a  strong 
Semitic  coloring  is  not  impossible  to  J  materials. 

The  conclusion  of  our  study  thus  far  is,  therefore,  that  no  one  portion 
of  the  J  materials  can  be  shown,  by  any  of  the  tests  advanced,  to  be 
disparate  from  the  main  body  of  the  J  source  in  thought  or  style.  Except 
for  the  minute  elements,  therefore,  the  J  source  as  described  above  must 
be  considered  as  a  unity.  We  turn  next  to  consider  these  briefer  elements. 

2.  To  assert  of  any  source-document  of  the  Gospels  that  no  verse, 
no  logion,  no  saying  or  incident  recorded  in  it  could  have  been  derived 
from  an  extraneous  source  rather  than  from  the  document  discussed  is 
manifestly  impossible,  and  no  such  statement  may  be  made  in  the  present 
instance.  But  it  can  be  safely  asserted  that  evidence  is  lacking  to  prove 

153 


84  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

heterogeneity  of  many  of  the  briefer  elements  of  the  J  source.  A  few 
general  arguments  for  their  homogeneity  may  be  adduced. 

First,  there  are  no  doublets  in  the  J  source.  It  has  been  shown  above 
(pp.  17-19)  that  doublets,  especially  those  of  the  Third  Gospel,  result 
most  frequently  from  the  duplication  of  the  same  saying  in  two  sources, 
both  of  which  are  inserted.  Therefore  the  absence  of  doublets,  while  it 
is  evidence  of  a  purely  negative  variety,  looks  toward  the  unity  of  the 
document  considered.  Certain  sayings  and  phrases  do  appear,  it  is 
true,  more  than  once  in  the  J  narrative;  but  these  repetitions  occur  most 
often  in  close  succession,  and  it  has  been  shown  that  such  repetition  is 
a  literary  characteristic  of  the  J  materials  (see  p.  63).  A  possible 
doublet  is  found  in  22:40  and  46  (though  this  seems  more  probably  a 
repetition) ;  but,  if  a  doublet,  the  extraneous  member  is  certainly  derived 
from  the  Markan  source. 

Secondly,  a  complement  to  the  absence  of  doublets  is  found  in  the 
infrequency  of  contradictions.  This  is  not  total  absence,  and  some 
contradictions  have  already  been  pointed  out  (see  pp.  72,  74);  but 
these  are  few,  and  seem  to  reflect  merely  the  evangelist's  point  of  view. 
They  lead  simply  to  the  conclusion,  already  recognized,  that  the  source 
has  undergone  a  certain  amount  of  editorial  revision;  but  on  these 
grounds  we  must  recognize  an  editorial  hand  in  24:7^,  466,  47.  The 
contrast  between  the  preservation  of  the  disciples  in  trouble  (21:18-19) 
and  their  final  victory  and  salvation  (21 : 28)  is  hardly  a  contradiction  of 
ideas,  nor  is  that  between  the  metaphorical  command  to  "buy  a  sword" 
(even  if  intended  literally  as  protection  against  assassination)  (22:36) 
and  the  protest  against  its  use  under  particular  circumstances  (22:51). 

Thirdly,  the  continuity  of  the  narrative  and  the  limitations  imposed 
by  the  necessity  of  consistent  progress  in  it  prohibit  the  introduction 
of  more  than  a  few  extraneous  phrases.  And  of  the  verses  of  the  J  source 
as  we  have  it,  few  could  be  omitted  without  leaving  a  gap.  A  few  of  the 
scattered  verses  of  the  introductory  narrative  have  no  close  bond  with 
the  general  narrative,  and  have  been  admitted  only  under  suspicion; 
these  we  may  still  suspect,  20:20,  26,  34-36,  and  perhaps  19:47-48, 
which  to  some  extent  duplicates  21:37-38.  The  remainder  of  the 
materials  assigned  to  J  adhere  quite  closely  to  the  general  course  of 
the  narrative. 

There  is  therefore  no  reason  for  supposing  that  more  than  a  few 
verses,  largely  editorial,  of  the  materials  previously  assigned  to  J  were 
wanting  in  the  source  of  which  the  third  evangelist  made  use.  This 
source  then  should  be  regarded  as  a  unity. 

154 


THE    SOURCES   OF   LUKE^S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  85 

H.      LITERARY  FORM 

As  regards  the  literary  form  of  the  J  source  there  are  several  possi- 
bilities. It  may  conceivably  have  been  either  an  oral  or  a  written 
source,  and  again,  its  language  might  have  been  either  Greek  or  Aramaic, 
or  possibly  even  Hebrew.  To  these  possibilities  we  must  now  address 
ourselves.  Evidence  may  be  adduced  to  the  solution  of  this  problem 
along  two  chief  lines:  first,  the  Semitic  coloring  of  the  narrative,  which 
suggests  that  there  was  an  original  Aramaic  narrative  of  the  same 
materials;  and  second,  the  Lukan  coloring,  which,  if  extensive,  would 
lead  to  the  inference  that  the  third  evangelist  either  was  giving  literary 
form  to  an  oral  tradition  or  was  himself  translating  a  document  into  the 
Greek  and  thus  giving  it  the  impress  of  his  own  style.  With  this  evidence 
from  style  there  are  also  further  proofs  to  be  adduced.  We  may  turn 
to  the  questions  at  issue. 

i.  Was  the  J  source  an  oral  cycle  of  tradition  or  a  collection  of  oral 
traditions,  or  was  it  a  written  document  ? 

It  has  already  been  suggested  (see  pp.  27-30)  that  the  divergences  from 
the  Markan  order  are  sufficiently  numerous  and  important  to  preclude  the 
hypothesis  that  the  J  source  consisted  either  of  a  mere  collection  of  oral 
traditions  or  of  a  series  of  comments  by  some  Christian  authority  upon 
the  Markan  account.  It  must  have  been  a  connected  account  with  a 
fixed  order.  It  is  difficult  to  suppose,  however,  that  even  the  order  of  a 
catechetical  cycle  of  oral  traditions  would  have  prevailed  hi  the  mind  of 
the  third  evangelist  over  the  order  of  the  written  Markan  document. 
This  makes  it  seem  more  probable  that  J  also  was  a  written  document. 

The  form  of  the  conflations  of  J  with  Markan  materials,  especially 
in  the  Apocalyptic  Discourse,  is  at  times  sufficiently  awkward  (see 
pp.  25-26)  to  show  that  it  cannot  have  taken  place  hi  the  mind  of  the 
evangelist,  as  must  have  been  the  case  had  he  been  using  an  oral  source 
which  he  had  committed  to  memory,  but  that  they  are  true  conflations 
of  the  pen,  formed  by  the  interweaving  of  two  documents. 

A  stronger  argument  may  be  drawn  from  the  style  of  the  J  source. 
It  has  been  shown  that  the  J  materials  have  a  greater  proportion  of 
unusual  and  characteristic  words  than  do  adjacent  Markan  materials 
(cf.  p.  58).  This  could  hardly  be  so  were  the  evangelist  using  an  oral 
source;  for  in  such  a  case  the  literary  form  of  the  materials  must  inevit- 
ably lose  a  considerable  portion  of  its  own  peculiar  characteristics  and 
take  on  rather  the  coloring  of  the  evangelist's  own  style.  But  the  reverse 
is,  in  fact,  the  case,  for  the  Lukan  characteristics  as  noted  by  Stanton1 

1  Stanton,  op.  cit.t  pp.  279-309. 

155 


86  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

are  fewer  than  in  the  Markan  materials  (1.09  occurrences  per  verse, 
against  i .  70  per  verse  in  Markan  materials) ;  and  this  is  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  97  of  the  151  words  listed  by  Hawkins1  as  characteristic  of 
Luke  are  found  in  the  J  materials. 

2.  Was  the  J  document  written  in  Greek  or  in  Aramaic  ? 

The  fact  that  the  Semitic  coloring  of  the  J  materials  is  stronger  than 
that  of  Markan  materials  (i .  82  per  verse,  or  i .  67  per  verse  for  the  narra- 
tive portions,  against  i .  45  per  verse  in  the  Markan  sections  of  Luke  20, 
see  p.  68)  suggests  that  the  J  source  was  an  Aramaic  document.  A 
comparison  with  the  infancy  narratives,  however,  furnishes  a  means  of 
checking  up  the  worth  of  this  impression.  Of  these  materials  we  may 
accept  the  verdict  of  Bacon2  that  Torrey  has  "demonstrated"  the  fact 
that  they  were  translated  from  a  Semitic  source.  What  then  is  their 
aspect?  Two  points  should  be  noted:  first,  that  they  show  a  strong 
Semitic  coloring  (2.52  Aramaisms  per  verse);  and  second,  that  they 
have  an  equally  large  proportion  of  Lukan  characteristics.3  These  two 
features — strong  Semitic  coloring  and  predominance  of  Lukan  charac- 
teristics— may  then  be  considered  as  typical  of  translations  by  the  third 
evangelist  from  Aramaic  or  Hebrew.  The  fact  then  that  the  Semitic 
coloring  of  the  J  materials  is  not  so  strong  as  that  of  the  infancy  narra- 
tives casts  doubt  upon  the  hypothesis  that  they  came  to  the  evangelist  in  a 
Semitic  version,  and  the  further  fact  that  the  proportion  of  Lukan  charac- 
teristics is  smaller  even  than  in  the  Markan  materials  quite  disproves  it. 

Further  proof  that  the  document  was  Greek  is  also  to  be  found  in 
its  peculiarities  of  vocabulary  and  style,  which  have  been  fully  discussed 
already  (pp.  56-66).  The  fact  that  it  has  stronger  Semitic  coloring  than 
have  the  Markan  materials  might  be  explained  by  the  hypothesis  that 
it  was  originally  composed  in  Aramaic,  and  was  not  a  free  composition 
in  Greek  as  Mark  probably  was. 

It  seems  quite  apparent,  therefore,  that  the  J  source  came  to  the 
third  evangelist  in  the  form  of  a  document  written  in  Greek,  but  possibly  a 
translation  of  an  earlier  Aramaic  composition  or  collection  of  traditions. 

III.      CONTENT   AND   ORDER 

i.  The  Jerusalem  source  is  now  presented  to  us  as  having  been  a 
written  document,  and  it  remains  simply  to  reconstruct,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, its  original  form.  In  the  case  of  this  source  the  task  will  not  be 

1  Hawkins,  Horae  Synopticae  (2d  ed.,  1909),  pp.  16-23. 

aB.  W.  Bacon,  "More  Philological  Criticism  of  Acts,"  American  Journal  of 
Theology,  XXII  (1918),  3. 

s  Hawkins,  op.  cit.  (2d  ed.,  1909),  p.  25. 

156 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  87 

difficult.  Any  account  of  the  Passion  period  of  Jesus'  life  and  ministry 
is  required,  by  the  very  nature  of  the  facts  with  which  it  deals,  to  preserve 
a  certain  rather  definite  outline.  The  arrest,  trial,  crucifixion,  death, 
and  burial  form  a  series  of  events  which  can  have  but  a  single  order.  A 
farewell  discourse  or  a  farewell  meal  with  the  disciples  must  precede 
these;  so  too  must  an  apocalyptic  discourse,  if  intended  for  the  admoni- 
tion of  the  disciples.  The  fright  and  desertion  of  the  disciples,  if  it  is  to 
have  significance,  must  be  inserted  before  Jesus'  death,  or  even  earlier. 
No  extended  discourse  to  the  populace  could  be  inserted  in  the  center 
of  the  narrative,  save  possibly  hi  the  guise  of  Jesus'  speech  in  his  own 
defense  at  the  trial,  and  even  so  it  would  seriously  interrupt  the  narra- 
tive. It  is  evident,  then,  that  the  order  of  the  Jerusalem  source  would 
have  been  quite  well  determined  by  the  necessary  course  of  events. 

It  is  likewise  evident  that  a  considerable  amount  of  duplication 
between  different  Passion-narratives  is  inevitable.  Any  and  all  narra- 
tives of  the  event  must  contain  mention  of  the  arrest,  trial,  crucifixion, 
and  death  of  Jesus,  and  some  mention  of  his  parting  with  the  disciples 
and  of  his  burial  and  resurrection  is  almost  equally  inevitable.  The  J 
source,  therefore,  will  inevitably  have  related  much  that  was  told  also 
in  Mark,  and  some  of  its  materials  may  have  been  supplanted  by  similar 
matter  drawn  from  the  Markan  source;  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  is 
rarely  that  it  is  necessary  to  complete  it  from  the  Markan  materials. 

It  is  also  to  be  expected  that,  in  accord  with  his  use  of  other  sources, 
the  evangelist  will  here  also  have  edited  and  improved  the  form  of  his 
source,  especially  at  the  beginning  or  the  end  of  a  section.  A  pretty  clear 
sample  of  this  is  found  in  22 : 24,  where  the  language  quite  closely  approxi- 
mates that  of  a  similar  editorial  introduction,  9 : 46 ;  but  it  is  impossible, 
of  course,  to  detect  the  hand  of  the  evangelist  certainly  in  every  case. 

2.  The  content  of  the  J  source  has  already  been  examined  with 
considerable  minuteness  in  the  process  of  discriminating  the  materials 
of  our  study  (see  chap,  iii) ,  and  the  great  mass  of  its  materials  have  been 
enumerated  (see  p.  54).  It  remains  to  satisfy  ourselves  that  this  is  an 
adequate  description.  As  far  as  the  materials  thus  described  are  con- 
cerned, there  are  few  objections  to  be  raised.  A  few  verses  (24:7,  46, 
47)  may  contain  phrases  that  are  due  to  the  hand  of  the  editor;  but  hi 
none  have  there  been  discovered  any  decisive  indications  of  derivation 
from  another  source.  It  remains  to  discuss  the  verses  classed  as  more 
doubtful,  with  one  or  two  others.  The  following  should  be  added  to  J: 

19:47-48.  These  verses  furnish  the  conclusion  without  which  the 
account  of  the  arrival  of  Jesus  at  Jerusalem  would  close  very  abruptly, 

157 


88  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

and  they  contain  the  idea  of  his  popularity  with  the  populace  (cf. 
23:27,  48,  etc.),  which  is  characteristic  of  J. 

21:10,  nb.  The  Apocalyptic  Discourse,  as  previously  given,  is 
without  a  suitable  introduction.  The  words  rbre  e\€yev  avrois  in 
vs.  10  create  a  break  in  the  discourse  which  hints  at  a  transition  to  a 
new  document,  and  the  words  which  follow  in  vs.  10,  while  paralleled  in 
Mark,  are  a  quotation  from  Isa.  19: 2,  and  so  easily  duplicated  in  more 
than  one  source,  while  vs.  i  ib  contains  details  not  found  in  Mark.  Verse 
na,  however,  seems  to  be  Markan. 

22:33.  The  words  ^uXawfr  and  iropevecrOai,  are  characteristic  or  fre- 
quent in  J,  so  it  is  likely  that  Peter's  reply  (though  not  vs.  34)  stood  in  J. 

22 : 466.  This  phrase  is  paralleled  in  Mark;  but  its  repetition  would 
be  natural  to  J  (cf.  p.  63),  and  the  idea  of  temptation  is  quite  promi- 
nent in  the  source  (cf.  p.  73). 

22:50,  516.  The  words  Trarao-o-w,  els,  and  the  partitive  use  of  & 
are  characteristic  of  J.  Verse  516  is  closely  connected  with  vs.  50. 

22:530.  Verse  536  requires  some  introduction,  and  the  previous 
portion  of  the  verse,  which  does  not  follow  the  Markan  parallel  at  all 
closely,  would  furnish  this.  If  it  stood  in  J  it  must  have  had  some  intro- 
duction, but  this  need  not  have  been  more  than  simply  Kal  ekeyev 
aurots. 

23:25.  The  repetitiousness  and  the  word  <j>v\aKrj  are  characteristic 
ofj. 

23:47.  The  naturalness  (dramatic  verisimilitude)  with  which  the 
Roman  speaks  is  a  characteristic  of  J. 

23:55-56.  Already  assigned  to  J.  The  word  nwintiov  is  frequent 
in  J  materials. 

A  few  other  verses  should  be  mentioned: 

20:17-18.  Verse  18  may  have  been  an  editorial  comment  in  a 
collection  of  "testimonies"1  and  introduced  here  either  by  the  evange- 
list or  by  a  later  scribe,  as  it  was,  apparently,  in  Matthew. 

20:20,  26.  These  contain  none  of  the  characteristic  words  of  J, 
and  their  insertion  here  is  hardly  in  the  usual  manner  of  Luke's  literary 
method  had  they  been  taken  from  a  source. 

20: 34-36.  Certainly  from  a  source,  but  no  J  context  for  it  is  appar- 
ent. It  may  or  may  not  belong  to  J,  or  possibly  to  the  same  collection 
of  "testimonies"  from  which  20:18  was  drawn. 

23:51^-530.  Markan  materials  replacing  a  necessary  J  con- 
nection. 

1  Cf.  Rendel  Harris,  Testimonies,  Part  I,  1916. 

158 


89 

24:  i.    Markan  materials  where  a  J  connection  is  necessary. 

3.  Enough  has  been  said  already  to  indicate  that  the  only  possible 
order  for  the  majority  of  the  materials  is  that  in  which  they  now  stand. 
In  addition  it  has  been  made  evident  that  Luke  habitually  uses  his 
sources  in  their  own  order  (see  pp.  6, 13  f.).  It  is  therefore  probable  that 
the  original  order  of  the  J  source  is  that  in  which  it  now  stands  in  Luke, 
and  there  are  no  serious  objections  to  this  order  to  be  found. 

The  Jerusalem  document1  then  contained  an  account  of  the  closing 
period  of  Jesus'  ministry  from  the  time  of  his  arrival  in  the  city  through 
the  resurrection  appearances.  It  may  have  contained,  hi  the  earlier 
portion,  a  fuller  account  of  Jesus'  ministry  in  Jerusalem  than  we  now 
have  remaining,  but  as  far  as  we  can  reconstruct  it,  it  falls  into  nine 
divisions: 

1.  Jesus'  Arrival  in  Jerusalem  (19: 28,  37-44, 47-48;  20:34-36  [  ?]). 

2.  The  Apocalypse  of  Jerusalem  (21:10,  116-120,  13-15,  18-20, 
216-22,  236-260,  28,  34-38). 

3.  The  Last  Supper  (22:8,  14-190,  21,  23). 

4.  The  Farewell  Discourse  (22:24-33,  35-39). 

5.  The  Arrest  of  Jesus  and  His  Desertion  by  the  Disciples  (22:40- 
41,  426-520,  53>  540,  55-6otf»  6106,  62-65). 

6.  The  Trial  of  Jesus  (22:660,  67-68,  70;  23:1-2,  4-220,  22^-25). 

7.  The  Crucifixion  (23:27-33,  35-37,  39-43,  46-490). 

8.  The  Narratives  of  the  Tomb  (23:50-510,  53^-56;  24: 2-100). 

9.  The  Resurrection  Appearances  (24:13-53). 

1  For  a  reconstruction  of  the  document  see  Appendix  III. 


159 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  RELATIONS  OF  THE  JERUSALEM  SOURCE 
I.      PROVENANCE   AND  AUTHOR 

i.  Provenance. — It  has  already  been  pointed  out  (see  p.  86)  that 
the  Semitic  or  Aramaic  coloring  of  the  language  of  the  Jerusalem  docu- 
ment is  sufficiently  strong  to  suggest  that  the  materials  originated  in  a 
Jewish  environment,  and  that  a  comparison  with  the  Second  Gospel 
serves  to  strengthen  the  impression  of  their  Jewish  origin.  But  the  test 
of  language  alone  cannot  be  decisive  in  this  matter,  and  we  may  seek 
further  lines  of  examination. 

It  is  apparent,  then,  that  not  only  the  style  of  the  J  document,  but 
its  thought  also,  is  that  of  a  Jewish  Christian  community.  The  pre- 
dominant interest  of  the  whole  document  is  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah, 
and  there  is  none  of  the  Pauline  interest  in  him  as  savior  from  sin.  The 
very  Aramaic  title  for  the  Messiah  appears  once,  "Christ,  a  king"  (23 : 2). 

There  is  no  recognition  of  the  presence  of  Gentiles  in  the  Kingdom 
(22:30),  save  in  the  general  (and  perhaps  editorial)  command  to  preach 
to  them  (24:47).  So  also  there  is  a  large  interest  in  the  fulfilment  of 
scripture  (cf.  21:22;  22:37;  24:25>  44~45)-  Again,  there  is  a  real 
interest  in  the  Temple,  and  Jesus  is  closely  connected  with  it  (cf.  19:47; 
21 138;  22: 53),  and  the  disciples  are  represented  as  making  it  the  cradle 
of  the  Christian  movement  (24:53).  Of  the  Jewish  ritual  also  there  is 
approval,  since  Jesus  is  represented  as  desirous  to  observe  the  Passover 
(22:15).  And  the  general  tone  of  the  narrative  throughout  reflects  a 
Jewish  environment.1 

Certain  details  which  appear  to  depart  from  this  Jewish  standpoint 
do  not  in  reality  do  so.  The  fact  that  Pilate  is  represented  as  exonerating 
Jesus  (23:4,  14,  22)  and  as  desirous  to  save  him  is  really  motivated  by 
resentment  against  the  Jewish  authorities  who  are  represented,  as 
responsible  for  his  death,  and  perhaps  even  the  actual  agents  in  his 
crucifixion  (cf.  23:25;  24:20).  And  the  favorable  comment  of  the  cen- 
turion, which  seems  to  imply  approval  of  a  Roman's  act,  is  introduced 

1  Cf.  P.  Feine,  Eine  vorkanonische  Ueberlieferung  des  Lukas  (1891),  61-62;  B. 
Weiss,  Quellen  der  syn.  Ueberlief.,  p.  170.  Wellhausen  (Einleit.,  p.  71)  describes  the 
materials  peculiar  to  Luke  as  "Hellenistic  and  cosmopolitan  throughout";  but 
he  draws  no  examples  of  this  from  the  Passion-narrative. 

90  [160 


91 

simply  to  magnify  Jesus  and  to  strengthen  the  impression  of  his  inno- 
cence, and  is  fully  offset  by  the  mockery  of  the  soldiers  (23 : 36-37). 

But  there  is  also  a  peculiar  interest  in  Jerusalem.  It  is  represented 
as  the  base  of  the  Christian  movement  (24:49,  53)  and  the  scene  of  the 
appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus  (24:7,  15,  34,  36).  The  whole  narrative 
is  laid  within  its  limits,  and  its  immediate  environs — Emmaus  (24:13) 
and  the  direction  of  Bethany  (24:50) — are  the  only  localities  beyond 
which  figure  at  all  in  the  narrative.  There  is  a  considerable  interest, 
also,  in  the  populace  of  Jerusalem,  who,  in  contradistinction  to  the  rulers, 
are  thought  of  as  favorable  to  Jesus — that  is,  to  the  Christian  movement 
(cf.  23:27,  48,  etc.).  And  there  is,  moreover,  an  element  of  urbanity, 
an  appreciation  of  a  diverse  point  of  view,  as  in  the  sentiment  attributed 
to  the  centurion  (23 :47,  see  p.  64),  which  is  most  native  to  the  life  of  the 
city.  And  finally,  there  is  a  very  persistent  interest  in  the  capture  and 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  (19:41-44;  21:20-24;  23:27-31,  48,  see 
p.  96),  which  argues  that  the  author  or  his  circle  had  a  special  attach- 
ment to  the  city.  This  sentiment  is,  indeed,  attributed  to  Jesus  him- 
self, in  that  he  is  described  as  having  wept  for  the  city  (19:41)  as  he 
bid  others  do  (23:28). 

This  evidence,  then,  would  all  seem  to  indicate  that  the  Jerusalem 
document  took  form  in  a  Palestinian  environment,  and  the  natural 
conclusion  that  this  must  have  been  in  the  mother-church  at  Jerusalem 
is  further  borne  out  by  the  interests  of  the  source. 

2.  Author. — As  to  the  identity  of  the  author,  little  can  be  said  posi- 
tively. He  was,  presumably,  a  native  of  his  community,  a  Jewish 
Christian.  But  his  cosmopolitan  urbanity  to  some  degree  offsets  this, 
and  argues  that  he  must  have  been,  if  of  Jewish  birth,  a  broad  and 
cultured  man.  He  may  have  been  an  eyewitness  of  the  events  he 
describes;  this  would  account  for  the  verisimilitude  with  which  he 
recounts  the  remarks  of  his  characters  (see  p.  64),  and  for  the  exact 
details  of  his  narrative  (see  p.  62).  The  recurring  interest  in  the  dis- 
ciples outside  the  number  of  the  Twelve  (19:37-49;  24: 10,  33)  suggests 
that  the  author  himself  may  have  been  one  of  them. 

Finally,  it  may  be  suggested,  but  only  tentatively,  that  the  author 
was  Cleopas  (24  :i'8).x  The  astonishing  fact  that  this  narrative  of 
Jesus'  appearance  to  two  otherwise  unknown  disciples  is  the  longest  hi 
the  Gospel,  while  that  of  his  appearance  to  Peter  is  passed  over  with  an 
indirect  reference  (24:34),  would  be  explicable  were  it  really  a  bit  of 

1  Harnack  (Luke  the  Physician,  p.  153;  Lukas  der  Arzt,  p.  108)  ascribes  this  material 
to  Philip  the  evangelist  and  his  daughters. 

161 


92  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC  STUDIES 

autobiography,  while  other  explanation  is  wanting  if  the  section  be  from 
J  (as  now  seems  probable)  rather  than  a  free  composition  by  the  evange- 
list (see  pp.  53-54). 

II.     DATE 

If  the  origin  of  the  Jerusalem  document  is  really  to  be  traced  to  the 
Jewish  Christian  community  of  Jerusalem,  its  date  is  most  naturally 
to  be  sought  in  the  period  preceding  the  fall  of  the  city  in  70  A.D.; 
for  the  flight  of  the  Jerusalem  community  to  Pella  seems  to  have  marked 
the  end  of  their  significance  in  the  Christian  movement.  Against  this 
early  date,  it  would  seem,  the  vivid  descriptions  of  the  fall  of  the  city 
furnish  strong  evidence;  but  their  testimony  is  not  so  positive  as  seems 
at  first  apparent,  and  they  need  to  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  other 
facts.  We  turn  first,  therefore,  to  an  examination  of  other  indications 
of  the  date  at  which  the  Jerusalem  source  took  shape. 

i.  Persecution. — First  of  these  is  the  reflection  of  a  persecution  of  the 
disciples.  This  is  seen  in  the  explicit  references  to  persecution  (21:12-19; 
22:37),  in  the  warning  not  to  fail  under  trials  (22:31)  and  the  promise  of 
reward  for  those  who  persevere  (22 : 28-29),  and  in  the  injunction  to  meet 
official  attack  passively  (22:51).  But  there  is  also  a  prediction  that  the 
persecution  will  not  be  fatal;  they  will  withstand  their  enemies  (21:15) 
and  not  a  hair  of  their  head  will  fall  (21:18-19),  and  their  deliverance 
from  the  toils  will  come  (21:28).  Indeed,  while  a  sword  to  keep  off 
robbers  and  assassins  may  be  needed  (22:36),  organized  resistance  is 
not  necessary  (22:38).  Again,  this  persecution  is  a  purely  official 
action;  for  there  is  a  bitter  enmity  against  the  ruling  classes,  who  are 
represented  as  the  enemies  of  Jesus  (19 : 47 ;  21:37;  24 : 20),  as  bringing 
about  his  death  (23 : 2,  23) ,  and  even  as  its  direct  agents  (23 : 25 ;  24 : 20) ; 
but  the  populace  is  thought  of  as  favorable  to  him  (23:27;  23:48; 
cf.  19:48;  21:38;  24:19). 

Into  what  known  situation  of  the  early  Christian  community  do  these 
facts  fit?  We  have  record  in  the  Acts  of  two  periods  of  persecution, 
one  which  arose  with  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen,  in  which  Saul  was 
instrumental  in  the  imprisonment  of  the  Christians  (Acts  8:2;  9: 2, 14), 
but  where  there  is  no  mention  of  executions,  save  in  Saul's  fevered  pur- 
pose (Acts  9:1),  and  the  second  persecution,  under  Herod  Agrippa  I, 
about  A.D.  44,  in  which  James  was  executed  and  Peter  imprisoned 
(cf.  Acts  12:1-3).  From  that  time  on,  the  church  seems  to  have  lived 
in  harmony  with  its  Jewish  surroundings,  save  for  the  execution  of 
James  the  Just  and  a  few  others  in  62  A.D.  (cf.  Eus.  H.E.  ii.  23.  21; 

162 


THE   SOURCES   OF   LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  93 

Joseph.  Ant.  xx.  9.  i),  and  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  there 
was  any  popular  feeling  against  the  Christians;  but  it  appears  rather 
that  the  opposition  came  entirely  from  the  Jewish  authorities.  This 
situation,  that  of  a  humble  class  in  disfavor  with  the  authorities,  but 
respected  by  the  common  people,  is  that  reflected  in  the  J  source,' and  we 
might  easily  believe  that  it  took  form,  possibly  in  the  first  persecution, 
about  34-35  A.D.,  but  perhaps  more  probably  at  the  time  of  the  second, 
when  the  anticipation  of  a  general  assault  and  the  memory  of  the  preser- 
vation of  the  disciples  through  the  former  persecution  would  combine 
to  give  it  the  coloring  of  dread  of  persecution  and  hope  of  safety.  The 
flight  of  the  Christian  community  from  Jerusalem  to  Pella,  at  the  tune  of 
the  siege,  was  felt  by  the  Jews  as  desertion  and  treachery,1  and  the 
breach  remained  wide;  so  that  after  68  A.D.  there  could  have  been  no 
such  feeling  of  cordial  sympathy  for  the  populace  of  the  city  as  we  find 
here.  The  date  here  indicated,  then,  would  be  about  44  A.D.,  or  less 
probably,  at  the  time  of  the  execution  of  James,  62  A.D. 

Again,  there  is  a  reference,  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  Gospels,  to 
the  imprisonment  of  Peter  (22:33).  According  to  Acts,  Peter  was 
several  times  arrested  (Acts  4:3;  5:18;  12:4-5),  but  only  on  the  last 
occasion,  when  imprisoned  by  Herod  Agrippa,  was  he  kept  in  prison  for 
any  length  of  time.  This  was  in  44  A.D.  probably,  and  though  still  in 
Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  the  Council,  he  appears  to  have  left  Jerusalem 
shortly  after  (Gal.  2:11)  and  to  have  left  for  the  West  by  the  time 
I  Cor.  was  written  (I  Cor.  1:12;  cf.  I  Cor.  9:5).  The  reference  to  his 
imprisonment  points,  then,  to  the  same  date,  ca.  44  A.D.  ;  later,  interest 
in  that  event  would  have  waned. 

2.  The  political  situation. — Politically  a  similar  situation  is  reflected. 
There  is  a  large  interest  in  Herod  Antipas,  and  especially  in  presenting 
him  as  acquitting  Jesus  (23:7-12).     Such  a  tradition  might  be  thought 
to  have  considerable  apologetic  weight  with  Agrippa  I  hi  the  defense  of 
those  Christians  who  had  been  arrested  by  him.    Again,  the  relation 
between  Herod  and  Pilate  as  sketched  in  the  J  source  (23:7,  n,  15) 
seems  to  reflect  more  or  less  the  relation  which  prevailed  with  some  of 
the  later  procurators,  as  between  Festus  and  Agrippa  (Acts  25:13  ff.), 
but  also  depicted  in  all  the  mingling  of  the  Herods  in  Jewish  politics. 
The  interest  in  Herod's  relation  to  Jesus,  then,  seems  to  best  fit  the 
time  of  Agrippa's  persecution. 

3.  The  ecclesiastical  situation. — This  is  also  primitive.    There  is  a 
considerable  interest  in  the  larger  group  of  disciples  not  of  the  number 

1  Cf.  A.  C.  McGiffert,  The  Apostolic  Age,  p.  563. 

163 


94  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

of  the  Twelve.  Their  enthusiastic  outburst  of  praise  receives  a  com- 
mendatory justification  from  Jesus  (19:37-40),  the  leaders  are  bidden 
to  respect  and  minister  to  them  (22:24-27),  and  they  are  brought  into 
the  narrative  as  sharing  in  full  in  its  events  collectively  (24:10,  33)  and 
figuring  prominently  as  individuals  (24 : 13, 18) .  On  the  other  hand  there 
is  a  considerable  interest  in  establishing  and  supporting  the  authority  of 
the  apostles.  Their  prominence  is  tacitly  recognized  in  the  command  to 
humility  (22: 25-27),  and  it  is  they  who  shall  be  the  rulers  and  judges  of 
the  new  Kingdom  (22:28-30),  and  who  are  recognized  to  have  held 
closest  communion  with  Jesus  upon  earth  (22:14,  15).  But  Peter's 
primacy  is  especially  supported;  he  establishes  the  brethren  (22:32); 
he  is  the  first  to  recover  from  the  blow  of  Jesus'  arrest  and  rally  to  his 
old  allegiance  (22:61-62);  he  is  the  first  of  the  apostles  to  reach  the 
resurrection  faith  (24:34);  and  he,  as  the  minister  (22:8),  is  the  greatest 
(22:26).  This  attitude  toward  the  disciples  seems  to  reflect  a  period 
when  the  ecclesiastical  organization  was  at  a  minimum,  and  all  disciples 
were  teachers,  but  when  the  authority  of  the  apostles  and  the  practical 
leadership  of  Peter  were  recognized.  It  may  reflect,  too,  the  period  of 
the  gentile  controversy,  and  the  Council  at  Jerusalem,  when  Paul, 
not  a  member  of  the  Twelve,  became  prominent.  It  could  hardly  be 
much  later  than  the  time  of  Peter's  departure  from  Jerusalem,  else 
traditions  exalting  the  name  of  another — for  example,  James — must 
have  been  more  prominent. 

There  are  traces  of  greater  elaboration  of  the  ecclesiastical  organi- 
zation, however.  In  the  passage  22:25-27  the  use  of  the  term  veurepos 
may  imply  the  existence  of  TrpeffftvrepoL,  and  the  bia.Kov&v  also  appears; 
but  both  of  the  words  retain  largely  their  literal  significance  (cf.  22: 27). 
This  argues  a  fairly  early  date  for  the  material  (cf.  Acts  6:2-3). 

The  sacraments  also  are  simple.  The  breaking  of  bread  (24:30) 
resembles  the  Agape  rather  than  the  Eucharist,  as  though  the  former 
observance  stood  higher  in  the  contemporary  esteem;  and  where  the 
Eucharist  is  described  (22:17-19)  it  has  an  unusual  order  found  else- 
where only  in  the  Didache  (Did.  9:4;  cf.  also  I  Cor.  10: 16). 

4.  Christology. — The  person  of  Christ  is  presented  in  very  simple 
terms  (cf.  above, pp.  71-72).  In  general  he  moves  through  the  narrative 
in  completely  human  guise,  as  of  one  whom  God  should  appoint  to  be 
Lord  and  Christ  (cf.  Acts  2:36;  3:20;  5:31,  etc.).  There  is  a  definite 
purpose  to  prove  that  he  is,  proleptically,  the  Christ  (cf.  p.  71).  He  is 
also  presented  as  the  Servant  of  the  Lord  described  by  the  exilic  Isaiah 
(22:27;  22:37;  cf.  Isa.  53: 12).  These  are  elements  of  the  earliest  Chris- 

164 


.    95 

tology  of  the  Christian  community  as  the  early  chapters  of  Acts  present 
it  to  us. 

In  function  he  is  thought  of  as  having  present  power,  to  save  in 
peril  (21:15),  to  intercede  with  God  (22:32),  and  to  mediate  divine 
power  (22:29) — an  attitude  that  appears  to  have  prevailed  in  the  early 
church,  when  they  made  prayer  to  Jesus  for  revelation  of  his  will  in  the 
lot  (Acts  1:23)  or  used  the  power  of  his  name  to  work  miracles 
(Acts  3:16,  etc.).  But  the  large  interest  in  Jesus  is  in  presenting  him 
as  one  who  should  come  in  the  office  of  apocalyptic  Messiah,  by  virtue 
of  his  having  suffered  and  been  raised  to  heaven  (cf.  Acts  3:20-21; 
2:32~33j  5:3°~31)-  The  necessity  of  proving  that  Jesus  is  Messiah, 
and  the  corollary  that  the  Messiah  is  to  come  from  heaven,  was  one  of 
the  first  that  confronted  the  Christian  community,  and  one  which  ceased 
to  loom  large  when  Christianity  passed  from  the  Jewish  environment. 
It  cannot  be  dated  closely,  but  probably  was  more  necessary  in  the  earlier 
portion  of  the  period  between  Pentecost  and  the  flight  to  Pella,  when  the 
new  movement  was  at  once  the  most  active  and  the  least  understood. 

The  significance  of  Jesus'  death  is  also  a  large  interest  in  the  J  source. 
The  main  purpose  of  the  document,  indeed,  is  to  describe  that  event, 
and  its  composition  is  therefore  unthinkable  until  the  death  of  Jesus 
took  on  meaning  in  the  thought  of  the  Christian  community.  But  this 
interest  began  with  their  resurrection  faith;  for  as  soon  as  they  at- 
tempted to  describe  Jesus  as  the  apocalyptic  Messiah,  they  had  to  explain 
the  meaning  of  his  death.  The  interest  is  here  expressed  in  two  ways. 
There  is  first  a  hint  of  the  difficulty  felt  by  many  at  the  fact  of  Jesus' 
death,  with  a  warning  that  this  difficulty  was  devised  by  Satan  (22:31). 
But  the  chief  interest  is  to  interpret  the  hard  fact,  and  the  explanation  is 
frequently  given  that  Jesus  died  to  fulfil  the  prophecies  (22:37;  24:26- 
27,  32,  44-46),  because  this  was  the  means  to  his  exaltation.  This 
interpretation  is  identical  with  that  offered  by  the  primitive  apostolic 
preaching  as  it  is  described  in  the  early  chapters  of  Acts  (cf.  especially 
3:18-21). 

5.  Eschatology. — The  escha tology  of  the  J  materials  is  closely  con- 
nected with  their  Christology  and  scarcely  needs  independent  discussion. 
It  should  merely  be  noted  that  there  are  some  very  early  traditions  which 
represent  an  expectation  that  the  Kingdom  would  come  with  the  arrest 
of  Jesus,  before  his  next  meal  (22 : 18),  or  at  least  before  another  Passover 
(22:16),  and  a  slightly  later  tradition  which  interposes  a  period  of  per- 
secution (chap.  21).  The  conception  of  a  purely  earthly  kingdom  is 
vigorously  combatted  in  the  description  of  the  person  of  the  Messiah, 

165 


96  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

and  even  the  messianic  entry  is  broadened  by  the  succeeding  passage 
(19:44)  into  the  visit  of  the  prophet  and  his  announcement  of  the  King- 
dom. This  polemic  against  the  national  and  earthly  view  of  the  King- 
dom was  an  essential  feature  of  all  the  early  Christian  propaganda; 
and  the  imminent  expectation  of  the  Kingdom  is  probably  not  later  than 
the  early  period  of  Paul's  missionary  work,  or  about  45  A.D.,  for  there  is 
no  expression  of  the  thought  that  it  must  wait  even  upon  the  evangeli- 
zation of  the  Gentiles,  an  idea  reflected  by  the  other  synoptists  (Mark 
13:10;  Matt.  24: 14)  and  in  Paul's  pressing  haste  to  preach  to  the  ends 
of  the  world. 

6.  The  fall  of  Jerusalem. — The  data  thus  far  presented  have  all 
inclined  to  a  date  before  the  destruction,  quite  positively,  and,  so  far 
as  they  admit  of  closer  definition,  to  the  period  about,  or  shortly  preceding, 
45  A.D.  Now  it  is  generally  supposed  that  the  descriptions  of  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem  (19:41-44;  21:20-24)  reflect  the  actual  events  of  the  year 
70  A.D.,  and  that  Luke  has  here  remodeled  his  Markan  source  (at  least 
in  21 : 20-24)  to  fit  the  event.  But  it  has  been  shown  that  in  the  Apoca- 
lyptic Discourse  Luke  is  making  use  of  a  second  documentary  source,  and 
since  the  date  of  this  source  is  in  other  respects  to  be  set  much  earlier,  we 
must  raise  the  question  whether  this  is,  in  truth,  a  vaticinium  ex  eventu. 

In  the  passage  21:20-24  the  description  seems  at  first  sight  definite 
enough,  but  a  closer  inspection  reveals  the  fact  that  it  is  cast  in  the 
most  general  of  terms;  the  beleaguering  forces  (vs.  20),  the  slaughter  and 
enslavement  of  the  inhabitants,  and  the  razing  of  the  city  (vs.  24)  were  the 
features  of  any  successful  siege,  and  could  be  imagined  by  any  author 
without  having  witnessed  or  known  of  the  operations  against  Jerusalem; 
and  the  warning  to  leave  the  city  before  the  siege  commenced  was  plain 
common  sense.  Torrey1  points  out  that  the  key  to  the  interpretation 
is  certainly  to  be  found  in  the  reflection  of  Old  Testament  prophecy; 
for  the  author  himself  cites  it  as  his  authority  for  the  fulfilment  of  all 
that  is  written  (21 : 22). 

The  passage  19:41-44  is  yet  more  definite,  and  describes  the  line  of 
circumvallation,  the  razing  of  the  city,  and  the  slaughter  of  the  inhabit- 
ants. Yet  even  these  are  generalized  to  a  considerable  extent,  and  do 
not  correspond  in  minute  particulars  to  the  descriptions  of  Josephus. 
Thus  the  scarcity  of  timber  led  Titus  to  surround  the  city  with  a  wall 
(rcTx°s>  Jos.  B.J.  v.  12.  2)  instead  of  the  more  usual  palisade  or  rampart 
(xapa£)  described  by  J  (19:43);  and  of  many  of  the  important  works, 
the  mounds,  rams,  etc.,  described  by  Josephus,  the  Jerusalem  source 

JC.  C.  Torrey,  Composition  and  Date  of  Acts,  pp.  69-70. 

166 


97 

makes  no  mention,  nor  of  the  civil  war  and  famine  within  the  beleaguered 
city  or  the  carrying  into  slavery  of  its  inhabitants.  Moreover,  nearly 
every  detail  could  be  supplied,  were  that  necessary,  from  such  Old  Testa- 
ment passages  as  Ezek.  4:2-3  and  Ps.  137:  7-9.'  There  is  then  nothing 
in  the  details  of  this  passage,  though  it  is  the  most  definite  of  the  series, 
to  preclude  the  possibility  that  it  took  form  well  before  the  tune  of  the 
Jewish  War. 

As  far  as  the  details  go,  therefore,  these  prophecies  against  Jerusa- 
lem may  well  be  dated  at  the  same  period  as  the  rest  of  the  materials  of 
J,  possibly  reminiscent  of  the  crisis  when  Caligula  ordered  his  statue 
in  the  Temple  (cf.  Joseph.  Ant.  xviii.  8;  B.  J.  ii.  10;  Tac.  Ann.  xii.  54). 

It  remains,  however,  to  explain  the  lively  interest  felt  by  the  source 
in  the  general  subject  of  the  destruction;  for  it  recounts,  not  merely 
the  two  prophecies  above,  but  also  the  more  general  prediction  of  23 : 27- 
31  and  the  vague  premonition  of  woe  hi  23:48.  In  a  writer  just  follow- 
ing the  period  of  the  Jewish  War  such  an  interest  is  easily  explained — 
and  this  may  be  the  reason  why  the  evangelist  saw  fit  to  employ  these 
materials — but  do  grounds  for  such  an  interest  appear  earlier  ? 

The  motive  which  lay  behind  it,  whether  before  or  after  the  fall  of 
the  city,  was  to  show  that,  by  the  refusal  to  accept  Jesus  as  the  Christ, 
the  Jews  had  forfeited  their  ancient  promises  and  were  liable  to  punish- 
ment. This  idea,  which  beyond  doubt  received  a  tremendous  impetus 
from  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  was  yet  a  feature  of  the  early  apos- 
tolic preaching,  according  to  the  picture  of  Acts  (cf.  Acts  3:19-23; 
4:12),  and  apparently  even  became  sharpened  into  a  prophecy  against 
the  Temple  (Acts  6 : 14).  Can  we  discover,  then,  in  the  period  before  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem,  any  causes  which  would  fan  this  idea  that  Judaism  was 
under  condemnation  into  such  a  flame  of  denunciation  as  we  find  in  J  ? 

The  expectation  is  easily  explained:  the  world  in  which  the  early 
Christians  lived  was  united  in  the  assumption  that  the  present  world- 
order  was  under  the  governance  of  Satan  and  the  powers  of  evil 
(cf .  Luke  22 : 53),  and  that  salvation  must  take  the  form  of  an  escape  from 
this  dominion.  The  Jew  expected  this  deliverance  to  come  through  the 
triumph  of  the  Messiah  and  the  destruction  by  him  of  the  present  order 
of  things.  For  the  Christian,  therefore,  who  identified  Jesus  with  the 
Messiah,  and  expected  him  to  come  in  glory  and  consume  the  world  and 
the  evil  powers  at  a  single  stroke,  the  only  escape  from  disaster  must  be 
the  acceptance  of  Jesus;  and  the  first  event  hi  the  program  must  be  to 
dislodge  Satan  from  his  stronghold,  the  city  which  had  rejected  Jesus. 

1  Cf.  B.  Weiss,  op.  cit.,  Text  u.  Unters.,  32  (1908),  3;  pp.  184  f. 

167 


98  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

It  was  easy,  therefore,  for  the  Christian  community  to  arrive  at  the 
conclusion  that  Jerusalem  was  under  Satan's  dominion,  and  must  be 
destroyed  unless  she  should  repent,  and  this  is  just  the  attitude  which  is 
reflected  in  the  first  oracle  against  the  city — she  had  failed  to  recognize 
her  opportunity  of  escape,  and  was  therefore  doomed  to  destruction 
(19:44;  cf.  Acts  3:23).  The  reconciliation  of  this  attitude  with  the 
cordial  feeling  of  the  J  author  to  the  Jewish  populace  may  seem  difficult; 
but  it  probably  lies  in  the  strong  sense  of  the  organic  unity  of  the  com- 
munity— as  for  the  ancient  prophets,  so  for  the  Christian,  the  nation 
must  suffer  for  the  sins  of  its  rulers. 

And  the  specific  occasion  for  the  prominence  of  such  predictions  of 
disaster  to  those  who  had  rejected  Jesus  as  the  Christ  has  already  been 
observed:  it  lay  in  the  persecution  which  the  Christians  were  suffering. 
Two  motives  are  universally  employed  to  strengthen  those  under  per- 
secution, the  hope  of  reward  and  the  promise  of  revenge.  The  former 
we  have  already  observed  in  the  J  materials  (cf.  21:28;  22:29-30); 
but  the  latter  appears  only  in  the  oracles  against  Jerusalem.  That  these 
are  intended  to  function  thus  and  to  strengthen  the  faith  of  persecuted 
Christians  is  clear  enough  from  the  very  apposition  of  the  second  passage 
(21:20-24)  to  the  prophecy  of  the  persecution  and  the  promise  that  it 
will  not  be  mortal  (21 : 12-19).  The  interest,  then,  that  preserved  these 
oracles  against  Jerusalem  in  the  J  source  was  the  persecution  of  the 
disciples,  and  this,  it  has  been  shown,  was  probably  about  44  A.D. 

7.  Conclusions. — It  has  thus  been  shown  that  all  of  the  materials 
reflect  a  situation  that  prevailed  in  the  primitive  Christian  community 
of  Jerusalem  by  the  year  45  A.D.,  and  that  there  is  no  need  to  as- 
sign any  of  them  to  a  later  period.  But  the  preservation  of  the  color- 
ing of  this  early  day  would  be  difficult  unless  the  traditions  had  been 
handed  down  in  written  form,  and  most  difficult  had  they  not  been 
compiled  into  a  connected  cycle.  It  may  therefore  be  concluded  that 
the  Jerusalem  document  was  committed  to  writing — in  Aramaic  of 
course — about  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Herod  Agrippa  I,  or  at  the  time 
of  his  persecution,  when  the  scattering  of  the  community  and  the  loss  of 
its  leaders  would  make  the  careful  preservation  of  its  traditions  a  matter 
of  especial  importance. 

III.      PURPOSE  AND  HISTORICAL  VALUE 

The  interest  of  the  author  of  the  Jerusalem  document  is  chiefly 
that  of  the  historian,  to  present  an  account  of  the  events  which  led  up 
to  and  followed  the  death  of  Jesus.  But  his  choice  of  this  particular 

168 


THE    SOURCES   OF   LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  99 

period  of  Jesus'  life  must  have  been  directed  by  some  underlying  motives. 
The  first  of  these  seems  to  have  been  an  apologetic  one,  to  present  the 
details  of  that  event  about  which  centered  the  Christian  apologetic 
in  regard  to  the  messiahship  of  Jesus,  and  to  show  how  he  could  be  the 
Suffering  Servant  and  the  apocalyptic  Messiah.  A  second  motive  may 
have  been  a  parenetic  one,  to  encourage  the  disciples  in  the  midst  of 
trial  and  persecution  by  the  example  of  then-  Lord  and  by  the  comfort  of 
his  promises  of  relief  and  threats  of  vengeance.  The  fact  of  persecution, 
too,  which  threatened  to  scatter  the  community  and  to  deprive  them  of 
their  leaders  and  of  those  who  could  relate  from  their  personal  experience 
the  traditions  about  Jesus,  may  have  been  instrumental  in  leading  the 
author  to  collect  and  commit  to  writing  the  traditions  which  the  com- 
munity valued. 

Of  the  historical  value  of  the  narratives  included  in  the  J  document 
it  is  impossible  to  give  satisfactory  demonstration;  but  they  commend 
themselves  as  reasonable.  A  presumption  in  favor  of  their  accuracy  is 
established  by  the  fact  that  the  third  evangelist  chose  to  follow  these  ma- 
terials rather  than  the  Markan  narrative,  if  any  weight  is  to  be  attached 
to  either  the  good  sense  or  the  purpose  of  accurate  investigation  which  he 
has  professed  (Luke  1:3).  The  narrative  is  inherently  more  probable 
also  in  its  details  and  relation.  As  Burkitt1  points  out,  the  mocking  of 
Jesus  is  attributed  to  the  idling  guards  and  not  to  the  priests,  the  trial 
of  Jesus  is  set  in  the  morning  and  not  at  midnight,  the  mock  adoration 
of  Jesus  is  attributed  to  Antipas'  soldiers  and  not  to  the  Romans,  and 
the  accusation  brought  against  Jesus  is  far  more  definite  and  contains 
the  "genuinely  Jewish  phrase"  XP^TOV  /3cun\ca.  Furthermore,  the 
presence  of  "eyewitness  details" — exact  details  of  time  and  place 
(see  pp.  62  f.)  and  exact  reporting  of  remarks  (see  p.  64),  together  with 
the  other  evidence  that  the  author  was  an  eyewitness  of  the  events  he 
describes  and  one  of  the  larger  body  of  disciples — all  this  goes  to  show 
that  he  was  in  a  position  to  write  accurately  of  the  things  he  narrates. 
Again,  he  records  events  which  do  not  accord  well  with  his  own  view- 
point and  purpose,  such  as  Jesus'  acceptance  of  the  title  of  Son  of  David 
(19:37-40,  see  p.  72)  and  his  prediction  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  King- 
dom before  the  next  Passover  (22:16). 

And  finally,  he  possessed  the  insight  and  breadth  of  view  which  are 
essential  to  accurate  writing;  whether  or  not  he  was  an  eyewitness, 
he  had  a  sympathetic  understanding  of  a  diverse  point  of  view,  revealed 
in  his  fine  distinctions  between  the  taunts  of  Jew  and  Roman  at  the 

1  F.  C.  Burkitt,  Gospel  History  and  Its  Transmission,  pp.  136-39. 

169 


100  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

cross,  for  instance  (see  p.  64),  which  would  enable  him  to  write  with  a 
certain  degree  of  objectivity  and  to  criticize  the  traditions  presented 
to  him.  We  can  hardly  accept,  then,  for  these  materials  the  verdict 
of  Harnack,1  who  attributes  them,  with  the  remainder  of  Luke's  peculiar 
materials,  to  Philip  and  his  four  prophesying  daughters,  and  characterizes 
the  whole  as  "altogether  wanting  in  sober-mindedness  and  credibility." 
Rather  the  historic  value  of  the  Jerusalem  document  must  in  any  case 
be  rated  high;  and  if  the  author  was  indeed  a  disciple  and  an  eye- 
witness, it  becomes  of  prime  importance. 

IV.      LITERARY  RELATIONS 

The  early  date  of  the  Jerusalem  document  established,  the  question 
is  raised:  What  relation  had  this  document  to  the  other  source- 
documents  of  the  gospels,  and  to  the  other  gospels?  This  problem 
must  now  receive  attention. 

i.  Relation  to  other  sources  of  Luke. — It  has  been  shown  (p.  56) 
that  the  vocabulary  of  J  is  related  more  closely  to  that  of  the  non-Markan 
portions  of  Luke  than  to  that  of  the  sections  derived  from  the  Markan 
source,  since  it  contains  132  words  found  only  in  the  non-Markan  sections, 
and  only  30  characteristic  words  found  also  in  Markan  materials. 
This  fact  lends  a  specious  probability  to  the  theory  of  Feine,  Weiss,  and 
Harnack2  that  the  peculiar  materials  of  Luke  are  to  be  traced  to  a  single 
source.  But  this  theory,  which  seems  quite  opposed  to  the  facts  of 
Luke's  literary  method  (see  pp.  8-13),  also  runs  counter  to  the  evidence 
of  diversities  between  J  and  the  remainder  of  the  non-Markan  materials, 
and  it  is  equally  difficult  to  connect  J  with  either  the  Galilean  or  the 
Perean  source.  There  is,  first,  diversity  of  style  and  language;  all  the 
evidence  adduced  in  the  discussion  of  the  point  (see  pp.  56-70)  bears 
equally  upon  this  point,  and  while  the  kinship  of  J  with  G  and  P  is  closer 
than  its  relationship  to  Mark,  its  individuality  remains  distinct.  Again, 
the  diversity  of  thought  is  also  marked.  The  interest  of  J  in  Jesus 
centers  about  his  death;  but  G  and  P  are  concerned  chiefly  with  his 
teaching  and  saving  activities,  and  hardly  make  mention  of  the  event 
which  is  central  for  J.  In  the  eschatology  of  J  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem bulks  large;  but  this  appears  nowhere  in  G  or  P  with  a  like  definite- 
ness  (even  13:34-35  reflects  only  Jesus'  determination  to  abandon  the 

1  A.  Harnack,  op.  tit.,  p.  108;  Eng.  trans.,  p.  153. 

2  P.  Feine,  op.  tit.;   B.  Weiss,  Die  Quellen  des  Lukas  Evangeliums:   Die  Quellen 
der  synoptische  U eberlieferung;    A.  Harnack,  op.  tit.,  pp.  108  f.;    Eng.  trans.,  pp.  152  f.; 
cf.  B.  S.  Easton,  "Vocabulary  of  the  L  Source,"  JBL,  XXIX  (1910),  139-80. 

170 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  101 

city),  and  their  chief  interest  is  in  the  end  of  the  age  (12 : 54-56;  17:22- 
37)  and  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  (12:35-40;  17:24,  30).  Finally, 
from  the  G  and  P  documents  as  they  have  been  described  above,  the  J 
source  is  set  apart  by  the  fact  that  Matthew  makes  no  use  of  it  (see 
p.  102),  though  it  is  hardly  conceivable  that,  had  he  known  it,  Matthew 
would  have  failed  to  employ  some,  at  least,  of  its  materials,  such  as  the 
ordination  of  Peter  (22:31-32),  the  explicit  statement  that  the  disaster 
to  Jerusalem  was  due  to  her  rejection  of  Jesus  (19:41-44),  or  the  ini- 
tiation of  new  members  into  the  Kingdom  from  the  tune  of  the  cruci- 
fixion (23:39-43).  It  must  be  concluded,  therefore,  that  J  cannot  have 
been  connected  with  either  the  Galilean  or  the  Perean  document. 

The  relations  with  the  infancy  narratives  are  somewhat  closer. 
There  are  a  number  of  similarities  between  the  two,  especially  hi  forms 
of  expression.  The  phrase  with  which  Jesus'  arrival  at  Jerusalem  is 
greeted,  "peace  in  heaven  and  glory  in  the  highest"  (19:38),  recalls 
the  hymn  with  which  the  angels  celebrated  his  arrival  upon  earth  (2 : 14), 
and  the  estimate  of  Jesus  as  "mighty  before  God  and  the  people" 
(24: 19)  recalls  the  description  of  his  youth  " in  favor  with  God  and  men" 
(2:52).  So,  too,  the  J  document,  and  especially  the  resurrection- 
narratives,  shares  with  the  infancy  narratives  a  large  use  of  angels 
(i:nfL;  1:26  ff.;  2:9,21;  24:4,  23),  and  of  visions  (i:  8;  1:22;  24:23), 
and  the  general  Semitic  coloring  of  the  narrative.  But  there  are  also 
striking  diversities:  the  Holy  Spirit,  prominent  in  the  infancy  narratives 
(1:15,  35,  41,  67;  2:25-27),  is  not  named  in  the  J  document;  Jesus  is 
presented  as  the  Davidic  earthly  Messiah  hi  the  infancy  narratives, 
the  restorer  of  the  nationality  of  Israel  (1:33,  68-74;  2:11,32,38); 
but  in  J  this  idea  is  strongly  combatted,  while  the  idea  of  divine  sonship, 
quite  prominent  in  the  infancy  narratives  (1:32,  35;  2:49),  is  merely 
hinted  at  (22:70).  It  is  not  possible,  then,  to  connect  the  Jerusalem 
document  with  any  of  the  other  sources  of  the  Third  Gospel. 

2.  Relation  to  Mark. — The  relation  of  the  J  source  to  the  Markan 
source  has  been  quite  largely  discussed  above  in  the  demonstration  of  its 
diversities  from  that  document  in  the  matter  of  order,  content,  and 
language.  This  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  there  was  no  close  literary 
relationship  between  the  two  documents.  In  spite  of  these  diversities, 
however,  it  should  be  noted  that  there  are  extensive  resemblances. 
The  history  related  in  the  Jerusalem  document  is  essentially  the  same  as 
that  in  the  closing  chapters  of  Mark ;  the  majority  of  the  events  are  the 
same  (including  even  events  as  little  necessary  to  the  course  of  the  narra- 
tive as  the  prayer  in  the  garden,  Peter's  denial,  and  the  mocking  of 

171 


102  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

Jesus),  and  they  are  narrated  in  essentially  the  same  order,  although 
there  are  transpositions  as  great  as  the  necessary  sequence  of  events  will 
permit.  The  explanation  of  the  agreements,  however,  cannot  be  lit- 
erary, but  will  be  found  rather  in  the  supposition  that  both  go  back  to 
the  common  apostolic  tradition,  if  not  to  the  very  events  which  they 
describe. 

In  view  of  the  theory  of  some1  that  the  Apocalyptic  Discourse  of 
Mark  is  composite  in  origin,  and  contains  a  "little  apocalypse,"  including, 
roughly,  Mark  13:7-8,  14-20,  24-27,  30,  it  should  be  noted  that  the 
Apocalyptic  Discourse  of  J  shows  no  signs  of  relationship  to  such  a 
document,2  and  that  the  Markan  materials  interpolated  in  it  were 
drawn  from  both  elements  of  the  completed  Markan  version. 

3.  Relation  to  the  Gospel  of  Matthew. — The  parallels  between  the 
Jerusalem  source  and  Matthew  are  very  few.3  There  are  eight  instances 
of  agreement  against  Mark  in  a  chance  word  or  phrase  (cf.  Appendix 
I,  list  VII  B) ;  but  these  are  relatively  rare  and  can  easily  be  attributed 
to  accident.  Of  the  more  significant  agreements  involving  an  entire 
clause  or  verse,  there  are  but  four  close  parallels.  Of  these,  Matt. 
23:11  is  only  remotely  parallel  to  J  (Luke  22:26),  stands  in  a  different 
position,  and  may  quite  as  easily  have  been  a  repetition  by  the  first 
evangelist  of  the  sentiment  akeady  expressed  in  previous  sections  (Matt. 
18:4;  20:26);  Matt.  19:28  agrees  with  J  (Luke  22:30)  only  in  one 
clause,  and  the  setting  is  different;  Matt.  26:75  and  686,  however, 
agree  quite  closely  with  J  (cf.  Luke  22:62,  646) .4  In  addition  to  these 
verbal  agreements  there  are  a  few  instances  where  Matthew  and  J 
agree  against  Mark  in  the  thought,  chiefly  in  common  additions  to 
the  narrative,  of  similar  tenor  but  different  content.  These  are:  Jesus' 
approbation  of  the  plaudits  of  the  crowd  (Luke  19:39-40;  cf.  Matt. 
21:14-16),  Jesus'  remark  to  Judas  (Luke  22:48;  cf.  Matt.  26: 500), 
his  rebuke  of  the  rash  disciples  (Luke  22:51;  cf.  Matt.  26:52-54),  and 
the  account  of  the  spectators  at  the  cross  (Luke  23:350;  cf.  Matt. 
27:36).  There  may  be  brought  forward,  therefore,  only  two,  or  three 
at  the  most,  cases  of  verbal  agreement,  and  four  vague  agreements  in 

*Cf.  P.  W.  Schmiedel,  "Gospels,"  Etic.  Bibl.,  II,  col.  1857;  R.  H.  Charles, 
Eschatology  (ad  ed.,  1913),  pp.  379-84. 

3  It  omits  the  verses  Mark  13:24-27  and  has  a  different  version  of  the  disaster 
to  Jerusalem,  Mark  13:14-20.  The  P  document  reflects  the  "little  apocalypse" 
more  clearly. 

3  For  list  see  Appendix  I,  list  VII. 

4  Matt.  21:44  (=Luke  20: 1 8)  is  of  doubtful  textual  authenticity,  and  the  parallel 
verse  in  Luke  seems  hardly  to  belong  to  J. 

172 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  103 

the  general  sense  to  prove  that  Matthew  was  acquainted  with  the  J 
document.  This  evidence  is  altogether  too  slight  to  demonstrate  any 
literary  relationship. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  urged  that  Matthew  would  not  have 
used  many  of  the  J  materials  had  he  been  acquainted  with  the  docu- 
ment. This  is  true  to  some  extent.  Matthew  has  chosen  to  follow  the 
outline  of  the  Second  Gospel  in  his  Passion-narrative,  and  that  fact  at 
once  considerably  limits  his  use  of  the  J  materials,  which  would  largely 
duplicate  the  narrative  he  followed.  Certain  other  of  the  J  materials, 
also,  are  not  adapted  to  his  purpose;  for  instance,  the  eschatology  of 
J  is  quite  largely  concerned  with  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  while  Matthew  is 
thoroughly  apocalyptic  and  looks  to  the  end  of  the  age.  But  it  would 
seem  that  Matthew,  if  he  had  known  them,  would  have  been  likely  to 
insert  such  passages  as  that  of  Jesus  weeping  over  the  city  and  prophesy- 
ing her  ruin  as  the  result  of  rejecting  him  (Luke  19 : 41-44),  of  his  exalting 
Peter  to  the  primacy  among  the  disciples  (Luke  22:32),  the  logion  of 
the  Jews'  wilful  disbelief  (Luke  22:67-68),  or  the  acceptance  by  Jesus 
of  one  rejected  by  Judaism  as  a  citizen  of  the  Kingdom  coincident  with 
his  own  rejection  (Luke  23:39-43).  And  these  Matthew  could  easily 
have  inserted  in  his  account:  the  first  might  have  been  placed  just  after 
21:17  or  22,  or  (most  of  it,  vss.  43-44)  23:39;  the  second  after  26:34 
or  41  or  43;  the  third  after  21:27  or  26:62  or  63;  and  the  last  in  the 
parallel  location,  after  27:44. 

It  is  then  equally  impossible  either  to  demonstrate  a  literary  relation- 
ship or  to  account  for  Matthew's  omission  of  practically  all  of  the  mate- 
rials of  J  if  he  was  acquainted  with  that  document.  It  is  easier  to 
explain  the  few  significant  resemblances  on  the  ground  of  the  oral  tra- 
dition or  of  early  harmonistic  corruption  of  the  text.  The  most  that 
can  be  said  is  that  Matthew  may  have  once  read  the  Jerusalem  docu- 
ment some  time  before  he  began  his  Gospel,  and  no  longer  had  it  in  his 
possession;  but  even  for  this  there  is  no  sufficient  evidence.  It  is  safer 
to  conclude  that  there  was  no  sort  of  literary  relationship  between  the 
First  Gospel  and  the  Jerusalem  source. 

4.  Relation  to  the  Fourth  Gospel. — It  has  been  frequently  remarked1 
that  the  Third  Gospel  stands  closer  hi  many  ways  to  the  Fourth  Gospel 
than  do  the  other  two.  This  relationship  Harnack2  ascribes  to  depend- 
ence upon  a  common  source,  which  he,  however,  is  inclined  to  believe 

1  For  example,  cf.  J.  Wellhausen,  op.  cit.,  p.  65;   A.  Harnack,  op.  tit.,  Anh.  IV, 
pp.  157-60;  Eng.  trans.,  pp.  224-31. 

2  Op.  tit.,  p.  108;  Eng.  trans.,  p.  152. 

173 


104  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

oral  rather  than  literary.  This  raises  the  question,  however,  whether  the 
materials  of  J  stand  in  any  peculiar  relation  to  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

A  study  of  the  Passion-narratives  of  the  Third  and  Fourth  Gospels 
reveals  at  once  very  considerable  similarities,  and  these  similarities  are 
always  in  the  J  materials  of  the  Third  Gospel.  In  both,  the  Pharisees 
take  umbrage  at  the  popular  acclamation  of  Jesus  upon  his  entry  into 
the  city  (Luke  19:39-40;  John  12:19);  in  both  Jesus  is  represented  as 
not  eating  the  Passover  (Luke  22:15-16;  John  13:1);  in  both  Jesus 
takes  leave  of  his  disciples  in  a  farewell  discourse  of  warning  and  encour- 
agement (Luke  22:24-38;  John  14-17);  in  each  he  enforces  a  lesson  of 
humility  by  his  own  example  (Luke  22:27;  John  13:1-11);  in  each  he 
prays  in  behalf  of  his  disciples  (Luke  22:32;  John  17);  in  both  Peter  is 
commissioned  to  a  special  office  (Luke  22:32;  John  21:15-17;  cf.  Luke 
22:34;  John  13:37-38);  in  both  it  is  mentioned  that  Peter's  stroke 
severed  the  slave's  right  ear  (Luke  22:50;  John  18: 10);  in  both  Peter's 
denials  seem  to  fall  before  the  trial  of  Jesus  by  the  high  priest,  and  in 
both  that  trial  appears  to  fall  in  the  morning  (Luke  22:66;  John  18: 24, 
27-28);  in  both  Pilate  three  times  proclaims  Jesus'  innocence  (Luke 
22:4, 14,  22;  John  18:38;  19:4,  6).  Most  significant  of  all,  in  both  the 
resurrection  appearances  of  Jesus  are  laid  in  Jerusalem,  not  in  Galilee; 
in  both  they  take  place  on  Easter  Day;  in  both  the  disciples  as  well  as 
the  women  visit  the  empty  tomb  (Luke  24:24;  John  20:2-10);  both 
insist  on  the  corporeality  of  Jesus,  and  tell  of  his  eating  with  the  disciples 
(Luke  24:41-43;  John  21: 12-13);  and  both  recount  in  similar  terms  his 
appearance  among  the  disciples  on  Easter  evening  and  his  commission 
of  them  (Luke  24:36-49;  John  20:19-23). 

In  particulars,  also,  there  is  a  considerable  resemblance  between  J 
and  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Of  the  63  resemblances  between  the  Passion- 
narrative  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  the  Fourth  Gospel,  there  are  31  in 
which  the  Lukan  account  is  the  closest  to  the  Johannine,  or  at  least 
shares  with  it  some  details  not  found  in  the  other  two  Gospels.  Of  these 
31  parallels  261  are  in  the  J  materials.  But  there  are  also  only  27  par- 
allels2 in  which  the  Markan  narrative  or  the  common  synoptic  tradition 
is  closest  or  shares  with  John  peculiar  details,  and  only  i23  in  which  the 
First  Gospel  shares  peculiar  materials.  This  would  seem  to  indicate  that 
the  Jerusalem  document  is  directly  or  indirectly,  equally  with  Mark,  one 
of  the  principal  sources  for  the  Johannine  account  of  the  Passion. 

1  For  list  see  Appendix  I,  list  VIII  A. 
3  For  list  see  Appendix  I,  list  VIII  B. 
3  For  b'st  see  Appendix  I,  list  VIII  C. 

174 


THE   SOURCES   OF   LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  105 

That  this  relationship  is  a  literary  one,  however,  there  is  no  sign. 
The  resemblances  of  Luke  and  John  pointed  out  by  Harnack1  are  largely 
to  the  portions  of  the  Gospels  anterior  to  the  Passion-narrative,  and  show 
that  the  nearer  approach  of  the  Third  Gospel  to  the  Fourth  is  not  simply 
a  matter  of  the  use  by  the  fourth  evangelist  of  the  J  document.  Of  the 
88  words,  also,  which  Harnack  lists  as  common  to  both  Gospels,  but  21 
occur  in  J,  and  of  these  only  4  (dTrojSaiwo,  XUTT;,  TOTC,  vTadiov)  are  J 
characteristics.  No  peculiar  literary  connection,  then,  between  J  and 
the  Fourth  Gospel  is  to  be  supposed,  and  the  problem  of  their  relation  is 
simply  that  of  the  Third  and  the  Fourth  Gospels. 

V.  CONCLUSIONS 

It  has  now  been  demonstrated  that  the  third  evangelist  employed  a 
distinct  source  of  some  considerable  length  in  his  account  of  the  Passion. 
To  this  conclusion  two  lines  of  evidence  converge:  the  external  evidence, 
gamed  by  comparison  of  the  Lukan  account  with  the  Markan,  and  the 
internal  evidence  of  style  and  thought. 

The  comparison  of  the  Third  Gospel  with  the  other  two  synoptics  hi 
the  narrative  anterior  to  the  account  of  the  Passion  (chap,  i)  has  estab- 
lished the  fact  that  Luke  used  his  major  sources  with  a  very  considerable 
degree  of  uniformity.  A  comparison  of  Luke  with  Mark  hi  the  Passion- 
narrative,  however  (chap.  2),  demonstrates  that  in  order  of  sections, 
in  similarity  of  language,  and  in  the  introduction  of  new  materials, 
Luke  departs  so  widely  from  his  former  agreement  with  his  Markan 
source  that  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  he  is  longer  dependent  upon  it 
in  the  main.  An  examination  of  the  materials  in  detail  (chap.  3) 
reveals  a  group  of  materials  which  form  a  connected  account  of  the  arrival 
of  Jesus  in  Jerusalem,  of  his  discourses,  of  his  arrest,  trial,  and  death, 
and  of  his  resurrection  and  appearances  to  the  disciples.  Thus  the 
external  evidence  makes  plain  the  employment  by  the  third  evangelist 
of  a  source  of  considerable  length. 

The  internal  evidence  confirms  this  conclusion,  and  the  materials 
ascribed  to  J  on  the  grounds  of  external  diversity  from  the  Passion- 
narrative  of  the  Second  Gospel  are  shown  to  be  independent  of  the  rest 
of  the  sources  of  the  Third  Gospel  (chap.  4)  and  to  possess  a  unity  of  their 
own.  Their  vocabulary  is  independent,  possessing  a  number  of  spe- 
cially characteristic  words,  having  its  own  choice  of  synonyms,  and  using 
but  rarely  words  which  are  characteristic  of  the  Lukan  writings  as  a 
whole.  They  show  individuality  of  style,  also,  with  characteristic  forms 

1  Loc.  tit. 

175 


106  HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

in  the  rhetoric  and  syntax  and  with  a  stronger  Semitic  coloring  of  the 
language  than  has  the  Markan  narrative.  And  in  the  matter  of  thought 
and  viewpoint,  finally,  they  stand  apart  from  the  rest  of  the  Third 
Gospel. 

The  unity  of  the  document  stands  unassailed.  It  is  impossible  to 
separate  it  into  a  few  divisions  or  to  prove  the  individual  verses  of  alien 
origin.  Ideas  afid  expressions  common  throughout  the  narrative,  and  the 
distribution  of  characteristic  words  and  Semitic  coloring,  serve  to  uphold 
its  unity,  and  the  absence  of  doublets  and  contradictions  and  the  con- 
tinuity of  the  narrative  further  reinforce  it. 

Finally,  it  has  been  shown  that  this  source  was  a  Greek  document, 
probably  a  translation  from  the  Aramaic  (chap.  5),  that  its  origin  is 
probably  to  be  fixed  in  the  Christian  community  at  Jerusalem,  about  the 
year  45  A.D.,  and  that  its  author  was  probably  a  disciple  of  Jesus  and 
eyewitness  of  the  events  he  describes.  We  therefore  conclude  that  in 
the  Passion-narrative  of  Luke  we  have  preserved  an  early  account  of 
the  Passion  of  the  Lord  which  furnishes  valuable  independent  evidence 
for  the  reconstruction  of  the  details  of  that  event. 


176 


APPENDIX  I 

AGREEMENT  AND  DIVERGENCE  OF  LUKE'S  PASSION-NARRATIVE 

WITH  MARK 

I.  Materials  in  Luke's  Passion-narrative  without  parallel  in  Mark:  Luke 
19:  (1-27),  370,  39-44;  20:18,  34-350,  366;  21:18,  22,  24,  256-260,  28; 
22:15-16,  2706,  28-32,  35-38  (43-44),  48-49,  5i,  53^,  610,  676-68;  23:4- 
16,  226c,  27-31  (340),  350,  30-43,  466,  48-400,  510,  53^,  566;  24:3, 
7-8  (106-11)  (12),  13-53. 

II.  Materials  in  Luke's  Passion-narrative  with  remote  parallel  in  Mark 
(remote  agreement  is  reckoned  as  agreement  in  less  than  50  per  cent  of 
the  language  in  discourse  materials,  or  less  than  40  per  cent  in  narrative)  : 
Luke  19:28,  376,  47-48;  20:17,  20,  26,  356-360;  21:11-16,  19-20,  216, 
23&,  34-36,  37-38;  22:3-4,  8,  14,  17,  21,  23,  24-26,  27C,  33,  30-41,  45, 
476,  520,  540,  55-56,  58-600,  62,  63-65,  70;  23:1-2,  18-19,  23-25,  32, 
33&,  35&~37,  50,  S4-56o;  24:2,  4-6,  9. 

III.  Materials  "closely  paralleled"  in  Mark,  but  closely  connected  with  non- 
Markan  materials:  Luke  19:38;  22:18-100,  470,  50,  660;  23:20-21, 
33<*  (38),  46oc  (47)  (5I&-53&);  24:1,  100. 


IV.  Omissions  by  Luke  of  Markan  materials: 

A.  Omissions  previous   to   the   Passion-narrative:    Mark   1:5-6,    136, 
16-20;    2:27;   3:196-30;   4:246,  26-34;   6:1-6,  18-29,  31,  346,  38; 
6:45—8:26,  32-33;  9:0-13,  21-24,  26-29,  396,  41-50;  10:1-12,  16, 

24,  3i,  320,  35-45,  50. 

B.  Omissions  in  the  Passion-narrative:   Mark  11:11-14,  156-16,  19-25; 
12:11,28-31,33-340;  13:10,20-23,27,32,34-37;  14:3-9,20(23-24), 
26-29,  sic,  33-34,  386-42,  44,  46,  50-52,  55-61,  64;  15:10,  4-6,  8,  10, 
16-20,  23,  25,  29,  34-36,  44-45;   l6:3,  7-8- 

V.  Passages  introduced  in  a  position  different  from  that  given  them  in  Mark: 

A.  Transpositions  previous  to  the  Passion-narrative  in  Markan  narra- 
tive: Luke  3:2-3,  10-20;  6:17-19;  8:10-21,  296,  420,  466,  516,  55<;; 
9:140,  346,48*;. 

B.  Transpositions  in  the  Passion-narrative:   Luke  21:37;    22:8,  17-18, 
21-22,  23,  24-27,  390,  40,  56-62,  63-65,  66,  670,  70;    23:2,  19,  32, 
33&,  36,  37^,  38,  45&,  54J   24:100. 

177]  107 


108  HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC  STUDIES 

VI.  Breaks,  discrepancies,  and  doublets  in  the  narrative  apparently  due 
to  a  conflation  of  sources: 

A.  Interruptions  of  the  context  appear  in  the  following  passages:  Luke 
21:15-18,  20-22,  26-28;  22:32-35,  40-510,  50-516  (5ia-53c),  60-71; 


B.  Appended  details:  Luke  23:10,  32,  35,  38,  54;  24:100. 

C.  Redundancies  and  discrepancies:   Luke  21:66,  cf.  19:446;    21:16, 
cf.  vs.  18;  22:526,  cf.  vs.  53c;  23:4,  cf.  vs.  36;  23:23-24,  cf.  vs.  25; 
24:9,  cf.  vs.  1  06. 

VII.  Agreements  of  the  non-Markan  materials  of  Luke's  Passion-narrative 
with  Matthew: 

A.  Agreements  of  entire  thought  or  verse:    Luke  (20:18);    22:26, 
306,  62,  646. 

B.  Agreements  in  single  word  or  brief  phrase:    Luke  22:18  (diro), 
21  (x«'p),  42  (T^V),  45  (Trpos  TOWS  fta&fTas),  67  (ewrov  r^uv)t  70  (rov 
®cov);   24:9  (dmfyyeiAav),  47  (ira-VTa.  ra  Wvrj). 

C.  General  agreements  of  the  narratives:   Luke  19:39-40  (cf.  Matt. 
21:14-16);  22:  48  (cf.  'Matt.  26:500),  51  (cf.  Matt.  26:52-54);  23:35 
(cf.  Matt.  27:36). 

VIII.  Agreements  of  the  Passion-narratives  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  the 
Fourth  Gospel: 

A.  Agreements  of  the  Passion-narratives  in  which  the  Lukan  version 
is  closest  to  the  Johannine:  Luke  19:38  (John   12:136);    21:12 
(John  15:20-21);    22:3  (John  13:2,  27),  23  (John  13:22),  25-27 
(John  13:3-5,  12-15),  33-34  (John  13:37-38),  39  (John  18:1-2), 
50  (John  18:106),  55-60  (John   18:15-18,    25-26),  67-68   (John 
18:21);  23:1  (John  18:28),  2  (John  18:20-32),  4  (John  18:38),  20-23 
(John  19:4-7),  33  (John  19:18),  46  (John  19:30),  536  (John  19:41), 
54  (John  19:42);   24:1-2  (John  20:1),  3-5  (John  20:11-13),  8-10 
(John  20:2),  22-23   (John  20:2,  11-13),  24  (John  20:3-10),  36-40 
(John  20:19-20,  26-28),  48-49  (John  15:26-27;  20:22). 

B.  Agreements  of  the  Passion-narratives  in  which  the  Markan  version 
is  closest  to  the  Johannine:  , 

Luke  19:35  (Mark  11:7;  John  12:14-16),  45-46  (Mark  11:15-17; 
John  2:14-16);  —  (Mark  11:24;  John  15:7);  21:15  (Mark  13:11; 
John  14:26),  16  (Mark  13:12;  John  16:2),  17  (Mark  13:13;  John 
15:21),  —  (Mark  13:23;  John  16:1,4);  22:21  (Mark  14:18;  John 
13:21),  21  (Mark  14:20;  John  13:18,  26),  —  (Mark  14:28;  John  16: 

178 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  109 

16,  22),  40-42  (Mark  14:32-36;  John  12:27),  42  (Mark  14:36; 
John  18:116),  47  (Mark  14:43;  John  18:3),  50  (Mark  14:47; 
John  i8:ioa),  53  (Mark  14:49;  John  18:20),  —  (Mark  14:58;  John 
2:19,  21),  63-65  (Mark  14:65;  John  18:22);  23:3  (Mark  15:2; 
John  18:33-37),  ii  (Mark  15:16-20;  John  19:2-3),  18-19  (Mark 
15:6-11;  John  18:39-40),  — (Mark  15:15;  John  19:1),  33  (Mark 
15:22;  John  19:17),  34  (Mark  15:24;  John  19:23-24),  36 
(Mark  15:36;  John  19:29^49  (Mark  15:40;  John  19:25),  54  (Mark 
15:42;  John  19:31);  24:10  (Mark  16:  i ;  John  20:1). 

C.  Agreements  of  the  Passion-narratives  in  which  the  Matthaean 
version  is  closest  to  the  Johannine:  Luke  19:36  (Matt.  21:8;  John 
12:12-130),  —  (Matt.  21:4-5;  John  12:15-16);  22:2  (Matt.  26:3-5; 
John  11:47-48),  —  (Matt.  26:31;  John  16:32),  51  (Matt.  26:52; 
John  i8:na),  54  (Matt.  26:57;  John  18:12,  24);  23:25  (Matt.  27: 
26;  John  19:16),  38  (Matt.  27:37;  John  19:19),  50-52  (Matt. 
i7:S7~59;  John  19:38),  53  (Matt.  27:60;  John  19:41),  —  (Matt. 
28:0-10;  John  20:14-18);  — (Matt.  28:18;  John  16:15);  24:47-48 
(Matt.  28:18-20;  John  20:21). 


179 


APPENDIX  II 
VOCABULARY  OF  THE  JERUSALEM  DOCUMENT 

Words  marked  with  an  asterisk  (*)  occur  nowhere  else  in  the  Lukan  writings. 
Words  marked  with  a  dagger  (f)  are  especially  characteristic  of  J,  occurring  at 
least  twice  in  that  source  and  not  more  often  in  the  rest  of  Luke  or  in  Acts. 


0,70) 


atpo) 

cureo/ucu 


fatrtos 


aiwv 

aKoXovOeu 

CLKOVU 


dXXd 
dXX^Xcov 
aXXos 
d/iapria 


*a/i7rcXos 

ava.pa.lva) 


avaipeu 


avaKpiva) 

avaKVTTTM 


*&Tropia 
diroarcXXco 


avBpwiros 


avofjios 

avreiTrov 

tori 


aTTTW 

dpa 

*dpt<7repoj 
dpveo/zat 
apros 


tapw/ia 

&7ras  Aorr'  ' 

&<rrpoi' 

drci't^ci) 
drcp 

dTTO  arOTTOS 

tti'a)(*"happen")     a^ 


CLTTOKpLvOfJiai 


a<j>eais 


110 


[180 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  111 

'  diCLKOveu 

5taXo7to"/z6s 


els 
€ls 

elffayw 


e* 


jSowos  diepjjLTjvew*)  eKetvos 

(*="be  parted")       lUteliro 
laxvf. 
diKaios 
*5ucaut)s 

5U>TL 

doKew 


SoOXos 

5vva.iJ.aL 


dvo 
5cb5«ca 


eavrov 

*  evuinov 


€70?,  e/xoO,  juoO 


de&os  Wvos 

5ep<iJ  edos 

dexofjidL  el 

5«o  eldov 


181 


112 

e£o, 
e£ou(rta 


€7Tl 
CTTljSdXXcO 


eoTrepa 

erepos 

crt 


IrotjLtos 


HISTORICAL   AND  LINGUISTIC  STUDIES 

*i<rayye\os 


^Xtos 


^d^aros 


6e6s 

^ecopeco 


Mi 

6p6vos 
dvyaTijp 

lo.oiJ.ai 
Idov 
Up6v 
LKavos 

lfJ.CLT(.OV 

tva 


182 


K00WS 

Kal 

KCLLpOS 

KCUO) 


KaXeto 


KapdLa 
Kara 


KefJiCLL 


KOL\la 


fcpareco 


Kp'lVU 
KpVTTTU 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE 


113 


KTaOfJLCLt, 


KVpLOS 
MtXfce) 

KUM 

XaX«o 


Xa/47rp6s 
*Xa£euros 
Xaos 

Xtfos 


XotTTOS 

*Xvrpoojtcu 


/uaKapios 

fJiCLKpodtV 

paprvpiov 
fjiaprvs 


*6 
jtcXXw 


coi' 


fj.kpifj.va 
Hepos 


/nerd 
/wrawta 


JUOVOS 
fJLVpOV 

VCKpOS 
V€UT€l 
VOfJLOS 


6,  *,  r6 

666s 
oI5a 
ouda 


0X0$ 


07TCOS 

opdaj 


*6pdpivos 
opos 
6s,  ^,  6 


OffTtS 

6rav 


06 


183 


oi'Se 

o^ets, 

ow 


obpavos 
ous 


euros 
ourcos 
ouxt 


oxXos 


(*=a  scourge") 


TTCtXtV 


7rapaj3tdfo/iat 
Trapayivofjiai 
*Hap6.dei<ros 
TrapadidufJLL 


Tras 


TraTacrcrco 


TTCpt 


114 


HISTORICAL  AND  LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 


lKpCOS 


Trpcoros 

\WTOi 
TTVp 


TTLTTTd) 


ir\rj6os 


o-eauroO 


(t= "ghost") 


TTOieCO 


TTOtOS 


nobs 


Wd5tos 


icpb 
7rpokpxoiJ>Q>i> 


OTeTpOS  (*l)  0T€tpo) 
(TT^OS 


7rp6s 


(7TpaT€Vfj.a 
(TTpaTubrris 


avv 
vwayu 


184 


(TWlT/jLlt 


ffWTTOp€VOfJ,ai 


Tapdo-crw 


xoAOs 
TTOpeuo/iat 

0-tTOS 

TtS,  Tt 

ri$,  ri 

*TTOpp(j)T€pOV 

<r/c6ro$ 

r6iros 

-t.              • 

• 

rore 

rptros 


TU7TTO) 
*^7PO$ 


wf/os 


THE   SOURCES   OP  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE  115 

0tXeco 


. 


<f>v\a.Kr} 


185 


APPENDIX  in 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  JERUSALEM  DOCUMENT 

Italics  are  used  to  indicate  materials  which  J  must  have  contained,  but 
which  are  here  probably  not  in  the  language  of  J. 

Brackets  indicate  materials  but  doubtfully  assigned  to  J. 
The  text  of  the  American  Revised  Version  is  used  by  permission  of 
Thomas  Nelson  and  Sons. 

Column  I:  materials  peculiar  to  Luke  (Class  I). 

Column  II:  materials  paralleled  in  Mark  in  a  different  location. 

Column  III:  materials  remotely  paralleled  in  Mark  (Class  II)  in  a 

similar  location. 

Column  IV:  materials  closely  paralleled  in  Mark  (Class  III)  hi  a 
similar  location. 

§  i.    THE  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY 
Luke  19:28,  37-44,  47-48 


B 


28  And  when  lie  had  thus 
spoken,  he  went  on  before, 
going  up  to  Jerusalem.1 

37  And  as  he  was  now 
drawing  nigh,  even  at  the 
descent  of  the  mount  of 
Olives,  the  whole  multi- 
tude of  the  disciples  began 
to  rejoice  and  praise  God 
with  a  loud  voice  for  all  the 
mighty  works  which  they 
had  seen: 

38  saying,  Blessed  is  the 
King  that  cometh  hi  the 
name  of  the  Lord:  peace 
in  heaven,  and  glory  hi  the 
highest. 

39  And  some  of  the  Phari- 
sees from  the  multitude  said 
unto  him,  Teacher,  rebuke 
thy  disciples.  40  And  he 
answered  and  said,  I  tell 
you  that,  if  these  shall  hold 
their  peace,  the  stones  will 
cry  out. 

41  And  when  he  drew 
nigh,  he  saw  the  city  and 


wept  over  it,  42  saying,  If 
thou  hadst  known  in  this 
day,  even  thou,  the  things 
which  belong  unto  peace! 
but  now  they  are  hid  from 
thine  eyes. 

43  For  the  days  shall  come 
upon  thee,  when  thine 
enemies  shall  cast  up  a 
bank  about  thee,  and  com- 
pass thee  round,  and  keep 
thee  in  on  every  side,  44 
and  shall  dash  thee  to  the 
ground,  and  thy  children 
within  thee;  and  they  shall 
not  leave  in  thee  one  stone 
upon  another;  because  thou 
knewest  not  the  time  of  thy 
visitation.2 

47  And  he  was  teaching 
daily  in  the  temple.  But 
the  chief  priests  end  the 
scribes  and  the  principal 
men  of  the  people  sought  to 
destroy  him:  48  and  they 
could  not  find  -what  they 
might  do;  for  the  people  all 
hung  upon  him,  listening. 


» Luke  19: 29-36  follows. 

8  Luke  19:45-46:  45  And  he  entered  into  the  temple,  and  began  to  cast  out  them  that  sold,  46  say- 
ing unto  them,  It  is  written,  And  my  house  shall  be  a  house  of  prayer:  but  ye  have  made  it  a  den  of 
robbers. 


116 


[186 


THE   SOURCES   OF   LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE 


117 


§  2.    A  FRAGMENT  OF  DISCOURSE 
Luke  20:34-36 


34  And    Jesus    said    unto 

them,    The    sons    of    this 

world  marry,  and  are  given 

in  marriage:    35  but  they 

that  are  accounted  worthy 

to  attain  to  that  world, 

and  the  resurrection  from 
the  dead,  neither  marry, 
nor  are  given  in  marriage: 


B 


36  for  neither  can  they  die 
any  more:  for  they  are 
equal  unto  the  angels; 


and  are  sons  of  God,  being 
sons  of  the  resurrection. 


§  3.    THE  APOCALYPTIC  DISCOURSE 
Luke  21:10,  nb,  i2a,  13-15,  18-20,  216,  22,  236-26*1,  28,  34-38 


io  Then  said  he  unto  them, 
Nation  shall  rise  against 
nation,  and  kingdom 
against  kingdom;1 

and  there  shall  be  ter- 
rors and  great  signs  from 
heaven.  12  But  before  all 
these  things,  they  shall  lay 
their  hands  on  you,  and 
shall  persecute  you,2 

13  It  shall  turn  out  unto 
you      for     a      testimony. 

14  Settle    it    therefore    in 
your  hearts,  not  to  medi- 
tate   beforehand    how    to 
answer: 

15  for  I  will  give  you  a 
mouth  and  wisdom,  which 
all  your  adversaries   shall 
not  be  able  to  withstand 
or  to  gainsay  .3 

1 8  And  not  a  hair  of  your 
head  shall  perish. 

19  In   your   patience   ye 
shall  win  your  souls. 

20  But  when  ye  see  Jeru- 
salem     compassed      with 
armies,  then  know  that  her 
desolation  is  at  hand;4 


and  let  them  that  are  hi  the 
midst  of  her  depart  out; 
and  let  not  them  that  are 
in  the  country  enter  therein. 

22  For  these  are  days  of 
vengeance,  that  all  things 
which  are  written  may  be 
fulfilled ;«  for  there  shall  be 
great  distress  upon  the 
land,  and  wrath  unto  this 
people.  24  And  they  shall 
fall  by  the  edge  of  the 
sword,  and  shall  be  led  cap- 
tive into  all  the  nations: 
and  Jerusalem  shall  be 
trodden  down  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, until  the  times  of  the 
Gentiles  be  fulfilled. 

I      I  25  And  there  shall  be  signs 
I      I  in  sun  and  moon  and  stars; 
and  upon  the  earth  distress 
of  nations,  in  perplexity  for 
the  roaring  of  the  sea  and 
the  billows;    26  men  faint- 
ing for  fear,  and  for  expec- 
tation of  the  things  which 
are  coming  on  the  world.-6 

28  But  when  these  things 
begin  to  come  to  pass,  look 
up,  and  lift  up  your  heads; 


1  Luke  21 :  na:  and  there  shall  be  great  earthquakes,  and  in  divers  places  famines  and  pestilences. 
!Luke  2i:i2b:   delivering  you  up  to  the  synagogues  and  prisons,  bringing  you  before  kings  and 
governors  for  my  name's  sake. 

3  Luke  21:16-17:    1 6  But  ye  shall  be  delivered  up  even  by  parents,  and  brethren,  and  kinsfolk, 
and  friends;  and  some  of  you  shall  they  cause  to  be  put  to  death.     17  And  ye  shall  be  hated  of  all  men 
for  my  name's  sake. 

4  Luke  21 :  2ia:  Then  let  them  that  are  in  Judaea  flee  unto  the  mountains; 

5  Luke  21 : 230:  Woe  unto  them  that  are  with  child  and  to  them  that  give  suck  in  those  days! 

6  Luke  21 : 266-27:   for  the  powers  of  the  heavens  shall  be  shaken.     27  And  then  shall  they  see  the 
Son  of  man  coming  in  a  cloud  with  power  and  great  glory. 

187 


118 


HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 


§  3.    THE  APOCALYTIC  DISCOURSE — Continued 


because  your  redemption 
draweth  nigh.1 
34  But  take  heed  to  your- 
selves, lest  haply  your 
hearts  be  overcharged  with 
surfeiting,  and  drunken- 
ness, and  cares  of  this  life, 
and  that  day  come  on  you 
suddenly  as  a  snare:  35  for 
so  shall  it  come  upon  all 
them  that  dwell  on  the  face 
of  all  the  earth.  36  But 
watch  ye  at  every  season, 


making  supplication,  that 
ye  may  prevail  to  escape 
all  these  things  that  shall 
come  to  pass,  and  to  stand 
before  the  Son  of  man. 

37  And  every  day  he  was 
teaching  in  the  temple;  and 
every  night  he  went  out,  and 
lodged  in  the  mount  that  is 
called  Olivet.  38  And  all 
the  people  came  early  in  the 
morning  to  him  in  the 
temple,  to  hear  him. 


D 


§  4.    THE  LAST  SUPPER 
Luke  22:8,  14-190,  21,  23 


8  2And  he  sent  Peter  and 
John,  saying,  Go  and  make 
ready  for  us  [the  passover] 
that  we  may  eat.3 
14  And  when  the  hour  was 
come,  he  sat  down,  and  the 
apostles  with  him. 
15  And  he  said  unto  them, 
With  desire  I  have  desired 
to  eat  this  passoyer  with 
you  before  I  suffer:  16  for  I 
say  unto  you,  I  shall  not  eat 
it,  until  it  be  fulfilled  hi  the 
kingdom  of  God. 
17  And  he  received  a  cup, 
and   when   he   had   given 
thanks,  he  said,  Take  this, 
and  divide  it  among  your- 
selves: 


!  1 8  for  I  say  unto  you,  I 
shall  not  drink  from  hence- 
forth of  the  fruit  of  the 
vine,  until  the  kingdom  of 
God  shall  come. 


19  And  he  took  bread,  and 
when  he  had  given  thanks, 
he  brake  it,  and  gave  to 
them,  saying,  This  is  my 
body.* 

21  But  behold,  the  hand 
of  him  that  betrayeth  me 
is  with  me  on  the  table.5 

23  And  they  began  to  ques- 
tion among  themselves,  which 
of  them  it  was  that  should  do 
this  thing. 


1  Luke  21:29-33:  29  And  he  spake  to  them  a  parable:  Behold  the  fig  tree,  and  all  the  trees:  30  when 
they  now  shoot  forth,  ye  see  it  and  know  of  your  own  selves  that  the  summer  is  now  nigh.  31  Even  so 
ye  also,  when  ye  see  these  things  coming  to  pass,  know  ye  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  nigh.  32  Verily 
I  say  unto  you,  This  generation  shall  not  pass  away,  till  all  things  be  accomplished.  33  Heaven  and 
earth  shall  pass  away:  but  my  words  shall  not  pass  away. 
•  2  Luke  22 : 1-7  precede. 

3  Luke  22:9-13  follow. 

4  Luke  22 : 196-20:  which  is  given  for  you:  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  20  And  the  cup  in  like 
manner  after  supper,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  my  blood,  even  that  which  is  poured  out 
for  you. 

«  Luke  22: 22:   For  the  Son  of  man  indeed  goeth,  as  it  hath  been  determined:   but  woe  unto  that 
man  through  whom  he  is  betrayed! 


188 


THE   SOURCES   OF   LUKE^S   PASSION-NARRATIVE 


119 


§  5.    THE  FAREWELL  DISCOURSE 


Luke  22:24-33,  35-39 


24  And  there  arose  also  a 
contention  among  them, 
which  of  them  was  accounted 
to  be  greatest.  25  And  he 
said  unto  them,  The  kings 
of  the  Gentiles  have  lord- 
ship over  them;  and  they 
that  have  authority  over 
them  are  called  Benefac- 
tors. 26  But  ye  shall  not 
be  so:  but  he  that  is  the 
greater  among  you,  let  him 
become  as  the  younger; 
and  he  that  is  chief,  as  he 
that  doth  serve. 

27  For  which  is  greater,  he 
that  sitteth  at  meat,  or  he 
thatserveth?  is  not  he  that 
sitteth  at  meat  ?  but  I  am 
in  the  midst  of  you  as  he 
that  serveth. 

28  But  ye  are  they  that 
have  continued  with  me  in 
my  temptations;    29  and  I 
appoint  unto  you  a  king- 
dom, even  as  my  Father 
appointed  unto  me,  30  that 
ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  my 
table  in  my  kingdom;   and 
ye  shall  sit  on  thrones  judg- 
ing   the   twelve    tribes   of 
Israel. 

31  Simon,  Simon,  behold, 
Satan  asked  to  have  you, 
that  he  might  sift  you  as 


D 


E 


wheat:      32   but    I    made 

supplication  for  thee,  that 

thy  faith  fail  not;   and  do 

thou,  when  once  thou  hast 

turned  again,  establish  thy 

brethren. 

33  And  he  said  unto  him, 
Lord,  with  thee  I  am  ready 
to  go  both  to  prison  and  to 
death.1 

35  And  he  said  unto  them, 
When  I  sent  you  forth  with- 
out purse,  and  wallet,  and 
shoes,  lacked  ye  anything  ? 
And    they   said,    Nothing. 

36  And  he  said  unto  them, 
But  now,  he  that  hath  a 
purse,  let  him  take  it,  and 
likewise  a  wallet;    and  he 
that   hath   none,    let   him 
sell  his  cloak,  and  buy  a 
sword.    37  For  I  say  unto 
you,    that    this    which    is 
written  must  be  fulfilled  hi 
me,  And  he  was  reckoned 
with  transgressors:  for  that 
which  concerneth  me  hath 
fulfilment.     38  And    they 
said,  Lord,  behold,  here  are 
two  swords.    And  he  said 
unto  them,  It  is  enough. 

39  And  he  came  out,  and 
went,  as  his  custom  was, 
unto  the  mount  of  Olives; 
and  the  disciples  also  fol- 
lowed him. 


THE  AGONY  AND  BETRAYAL  OF  JESUS 
Luke  22:40-41,  426-5 2a,  53-540 


40  And  when  he  was  at  the 
place,  he  said  unto  them, 

Pray  that  ye  enter  not  into 
temptation. 

41  And    he    was    parted 
from  them  about  a  stone's 
cast;  and  he  kneeled  down 
and  prayed,2 

not  my  will,  but  thine,  be 
done. 


43  [And     there     appeared 
unto   him    an   angel   from 
heaven,  strengthening  him. 

44  And  being  in  an  agony 
he  prayed  more  earnestly; 
and  his  sweat  became  as  it 
were  great  drops  of  blood 
falling     down     upon     the 
ground.] 


i  Luke  22:34:  And  he  said,  I  tell  thee,  Peter,  the  cock  shall  not  crow  this  day,  until  thou  shalt 
thrice  deny  that  thou  knowest  me. 

8  Luke  22:420:  42  saying,  Father,  if  thou  be  willing,  remove  this  cup  from  me:  nevertheless 

189 


120 


HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 


§  6.    THE  AGONY  AND  BETRAYAL  or  JESUS — Continued 


45  And  when  he  rose  up 
from  his  prayer,  he  came 
unto  the  disciples,  and 
found  them  sleeping  for 
sorrow,  46  and  said  unto 
them,  Why  sleep  ye? 

rise  and  pray,  that  ye  enter 
not  into  temptation. 
47  While  he  yet  spake,  be- 
hold,  a  multitude,   and  he 
that  was  called  Judas,  one  of 
the  twelve,  went  before  them; 
and  he  drew  near  unto  Jesus 
to  kiss  him. 

48  But  Jesus  said  unto  him, 
Judas,  betrayest  thou  the 
Son  of  man  with  a  kiss  ? 

49  And    when    they    that 
were  about  him  saw  what 
would    follow,    they    said, 
Lord,  shall  we  smite  with 
the  sword  ? 


50  And  a  certain  one  of 
them  smote  the  servant  of 
the  high  priest,  and  struck 
off  his  right  ear. 

51  But  Jesus  answered  and 
said,  Suffer  ye  them  thus 
far.  And  he  touched  his 
ear,  and  healed  him. 

52  And    Jesus    said    unto 
the  chief  priests,1 

53  When  I  was  daily  with 
you     in     the     temple,     ye 
stretched   not   forth   your 
hands  against  me: 

but  this  is  your  hour,  and 
the  power  of  darkness. 


54  And  they  seized  him, 
and  led  him  away,  and 
brought  him  into  the  high 
priest's  house.2 


§  7.    PETER'S  DENIALS 
Luke  22:55-600,  6iab,  62 


55  And    when    they    had 
kindled  a  fire  in  the  midst 
of  the  court,  and  had  sat 
down  together,  Peter  sat  hi 
the  midst  of  them. 

56  And  a  certain  maid  see- 
ing him  as  he  sat  hi  the  light 
of  the  fire,  and  looking  sted- 
fastly  upon  him,  said,  This 

also   was   with   him. 


man 


57  But  he  denied,  saying, 
Woman,  I  know  him  not. 

58  And  after  a  little  while 
another  saw  him,  and  said, 
Thou  also  art  one  of  them. 


But  Peter  said,  Man,  I  am 
not. 

59  And  after  the  space  of 
about  one  hour  another 
confidently  affirmed,  say- 
ing, Of  a  truth  this  man 
also  was  with  him;  for  he 
is  a  Galilaean.  60  But 
Peter  said,  Man,  I  know 
not  what  thou  sayest.* 

6 1  And  the  Lord  turned, 
and  looked  upon  Peter. 

I  And  Peter  remembered  the 
I  word  of  the  Lord,* 

62  And  he  went  out,  and 
wept  bitterly. 


1  Luke  22:sibc:  and  captains  of  the  temple,  and  elders,  that  were  come  against  him,  Are  ye  come 
out,  as  against  a  robber,  with  swords  and  staves  ? 

2  Luke  22 : 546:  But  Peter  followed  afar  off. 

8  Luke  22:606:  And  immediately,  while  he  yet  spake,  the  cock  crew. 

4  Luke  22 :  6ic:  how  that  he  said  unto  him,  Before  the  cock  crow  this  day  thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice. 


190 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE 


121 


JESUS  EXAMINED  BY  THE  PROSECUTORS 
Luke  22:63-660,  67-68,  70;  23:1 


63  And  the  men  that  held 
Jesus  mocked  him,  and  beat 
him.  64  And  they  blind- 
folded him,  and  asked  him, 
saying,  Prophesy:  who  is  he 
that  struck  thee?  65  And 
many  other  things  spake 
they  against  him,  reviling 
him. 

66  And  as  soon  as  it  was 
day,  the  assembly  of  the 
elders  of  the  people  was 
gathered  together,  both  chief 
priests  and  scribes;1 


D 


I  saying,  67  If  thou  art  the 

I  Christ,  tell  us. 

But  he  said  unto  them,  If 
I  tell  you,  ye  will  not  believe: 
68  and  if  I  ask  you,  ye  will 
not  answer.2 

70  And  they  all  said,  Art 
thou  then  the  Son  of  God  ? 
And  he  said  unto  them,  Ye 
say  that  I  am.' 

i  And  the  whole  company 
of  them  rose  up,  and 
brought  him  before  Pilate. 


§  9.    THE  TRIAL  OF  JESUS 
Luke  23:2-16,  18-220,  22^-25 


2  And  they  began  to  accuse 

him,  saying,  We  found  this 

man  perverting  our  nation, 

and     forbidding     to     give 

tribute  to  Caesar,  and  say- 
ing that  he  himself  is  Christ 

a  king. 

3  And  Pilate  asked  him, 
saying,  Art  thou  the  King  of 
the  Jews  ?  And  he  answered 
him  and  said,  Thou  sayest. 

4  And  Pilate  said  unto  the 
chief  priests  and  the  multi- 
tudes, I  find  no  fault  in  this 
man. 

5  But  they  were  the  more 
urgent,  saying,  He  stirreth 
up    the    people,    teaching 
throughout  all  Judaea,  and 
beginning  from  Galilee  even 
unto     this     place.    6  But 
when  Pilate  heard  it,  he 
asked    whether    the    man 
were  a  Galilaean.     7  And 
when  he  knew  that  he  was 
of  Herod's  jurisdiction,  he 
sent  him  unto  Herod,  who 
himself  also  was  at  Jeru- 
salem in  these  days. 


8  Now  when  Herod  saw 
Jesus,  he  was  exceeding 
glad:  for  he  was  of  a  long 
tune  desirous  to  see  him, 
because  he  had  heard  con- 
cerning him;  and  he  hoped 
to  see  some  miracle  done  by 
him.  9  And  he  questioned 
him  in  many  words;  but  he 
answered  him  nothing. 

10  And  the  chief  priests 
and  the  scribes  stood,  vehe- 
mently accusing  him. 

ii  And  Herod  with  his  sol- 
diers set  him  at  nought,  and 
mocked  him,  and  arraying 
him  in  gorgeous  apparel 
sent  him  back  to  Pilate. 

12  And  Herod  and  Pilate  be- 
came friends  with  each  other 
that  very  day:  for  before  they 
were  at  enmity  between  them- 
selves. 

13  And  Pilate  called  together 
the  chief  priests  and  the  rulers 
and  the  people,   14  and  said 
unto  them,  Ye  brought  unto 


1  Luke  22:666:  and  they  led  him  away  into  their  council, 

2  Luke  22:60:    But  from  henceforth  shall  the  Son  of  man  be  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  the  power 
of  God. 

»Luke  22:71:  And  they  said,  What  further  need  have  we  of  witness?  for  we  ourselves  have  heard 
from  his  own  mouth. 

191 


122 


HISTOKICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 


§  9.    THE  TRIAL  OF  JESUS— Continued 


H 


me  this  man,  as  one  that  per- 
verteth  the  people:  and  be- 
hold, I,  having  examined  him 
before  you,  found  no  fault  in 
this  man  touching  those  things 
whereof  ye  accuse  him:  15  no, 
nor  yet  Herod:  for  he  sent 
him  back  unto  us;  and  behold, 
nothing  worthy  of  death  hath 
been  done  by  him. 

1 6  I  will  therefore  chastise 
him,  and  release  him. 
18  But  they  cried  out  all  to- 
gether, saying,  Away,  with 
this  man, 

and  release  unto  us  Barab- 
bas: — 19  one  who  for  a 
certain  insurrection  made 
in  the  city,  and  for  murder, 
was  cast  into  prison. 
20  And  Pilate  spake  unto 
them  again,  desiring  to 


release  Jesus;  21  but  they 
shouted,  saying,  Crucify, 
crucify  him. 

22  And  he  said  unto  them 
the   third   time.1     I    have 
found  no  cause  of  death  in 
him:  I  will  therefore  chas- 
tise him  and  release  him. 

23  But  they  were  urgent 
with    loud    voices,    asking 
that  he  might  be  crucified. 
And  their  voices  prevailed. 

24  And   Pilate  gave   sen- 
tence that  what  they  asked 
for  should  be  done.    25  And 
he  released  him  that  for  in- 
surrection and  murder  had 
been  cast  into  prison,  whom 
they  asked  for;  but  Jesus 
he  delivered   up   to    their 
will.2 


B 


§  10.    A  PROPHECY  AGAINST  JERUSALEM 
Luke  23:27-31 


27  And  there  followed  him 
a  great  multitude  of  the 
people,  and  of  women  who 
bewailed  and  lamented  him. 

28  But  Jesus  turning  unto 
them   said,    Daughters   of 
Jerusalem,  weep  not  for  me, 
but   weep   for   yourselves, 
and  for  your  children. 

29  For   behold,    the   days 
are  coming,  in  which  they 


stall  say,  Blessed  are  the 
barren,  and  the  wombs  that 
never  bare,  and  the  breasts 
that  never  gave  suck. 
30  Then  shall  they  begin 
to  say  to  the  mountains, 
Fall  on  us;  and  to  the  hills, 

Cover  us.  31  For  if  they 
do  these  things  in  the  green 
tree,  what  shall  be  done  in 
the  dry  ? 


B 


§  ii.    THE  CRUCIFIXION 
Luke  23:32-340,  35~37,  39~43>  46-490 


32  And  there  were  also 
two  others,  malefactors,  led 
with  him  to  be  put  to 
death. 

33  And    when    they    came 
unto    the    place    which    is 
called  The  skull,  there  they      C 
crucified  him, 


and  the  malefactors,  one 
on  the  right  hand  and  the 
other  on  the  left. 

34  [And  Jesus  said,  Father, 
forgive    them;     for    they 
know  not  what  they  do.]3 

35  And  the  people  stood 
beholding. 


1  Luke  23 : 226:   Why,  what  evil  hath  this  man  done  ? 

2  Luke  23:26:    And  when  they  led  him  away,  they  laid  hold  upon  one  Simon  of  Cyrene,  coming 
from  the  country,  and  laid  on  him  the  cross,  to  bear  it  after  Jesus. 

8  Luke  23 1346:  And  parting  his  garments  among  them,  they  cast  lots. 

192 


THE   SOURCES   OF  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE 


123 


§n.    THE  CRUCIFIXION— Continued 


And  the  rulers  also  scoffed 
at  him,  saying,  He  saved 
others;  let  him  save  him- 
self, if  this  is  the  Christ  of 
God,  his  chosen. 

36  And  the  soldiers  also 
mocked  him,  coming  to 
him,  offering  him  vinegar, 

37  and  saying,  If  thou  art 
the  King  of  the  Jews,  save 
thyself.1 

39  And  one  of  the  male- 
factors that  were  hanged 
railed  on  him, 
saying,  Art  not  thou  the 
Christ?    save  thyself  and 
us.    40     But     the     other 
answered,     and     rebuking 
him   said,   Dost   thou  not 
even  fear  God,  seeing  thou 
art  hi  the  same  condemna- 
tion?   41  And  we  indeed, 
justly;    for  we  receive  the 
due  reward  of  our  deeds: 
but   this   man  hath  done 


H 


nothing  amiss.  42  And  he 
said  Jesus,  remember  me 
when  thou  comest  in  thy 
kingdom.  43  And  he  said 
unto  him,  Verily  I  say  unto 
thee,  To-day  shalt  thou 
be  with  me  hi  Paradise.2 
46  And  Jesus,  crying  with 
a  loud  voice,  said,  Father, 
into  thy  hands  I  commend 
my  spirit: 

I  and  having  said  this, 
I  gave  up  the  ghost. 
47  And  when  the  centu- 
rion saw  what  was  done  he 
glorified  God,  saying,  Cer- 
tainly this  was  a  righteous 
man. 

48  And  all  the  multitudes 
that  came  together  to  this 
sight,  when  they  beheld  the 
things  that  were  done,  re- 
turned smiting  their  breasts. 

49  And  all  his  acquaint- 
ance,3 stood  afar  off,  seeing 
these  things. 


he 


§  12.    THE  BURIAL  OF  JESUS 
Luke  23: 50-5 1 a,  52-56(1 


50    And    behold,    a    man 

named  Joseph, 
who   was   a    councillor,    a 
good    and    righteous    man 
51  (he  had  not  consented  to 
their  counsel  and  deed),4 

52  this  man  went  to  Pilate, 
and  asked  for  the  body  of 
Jesus.  53  And  he  took  it 
down,  and  wrapped  it  in  a 
linen  cloth,  and  laid  him  in 
a  tomb  that  was  hewn  in 
stone, 


where  never  man  had  yet 
lain. 


54  And  it  was  the  day  of  the 
Preparation,  and  the  sab- 
bath drew  on. 

55  And  the  women,  who  had 
come  with  him  out  of  Galilee, 
followed  after  and  beheld  the 
tomb,  and  how  his  body  was 
laid.  56  And  they  returned, 
and  prepared  spices  and 
ointments. 


1  Luke  23:38:  And  there  was  also  a  superscription  over  him,  THIS  is  THE  KING  OF  THE  JEWS. 

2  Luke  23:44-45:   44  And  it  was  now  about  the  sixth  hour,  and  a  darkness  came  over  the  whole 
land  until  the  ninth  hour,  45  the  sun's  light  failing:  and  the  veil  of  the  temple  was  rent  in  the  midst. 

3  Luke  23 :4oft:  and  the  women  that  followed  with  him  from  Galilee. 

4  Luke  23:516:  a  man  of  Arimathaea,  a  city  of  the  Jews,  who  was  looking  for  the  kingdom  of  God. 

193 


124 


HISTORICAL   AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 

§  13.    THE  EMPTY  TOMB 
Luke  23:566;    24:1-5,  66-ioa 


And  on  the  sabbath  they 
rested  according  to  the  com- 
mandment. 

i  But  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week,   at  early  dawn,   they 
came  unto  the  tomb, 
bringing   the   spices   which 
they  had  prepared. 

2  And  they  found  the  stone 
rolled  away  from  the  tomb. 

3  And  they  entered  in,  and 
found  not  the  body  [of  the 
Lord  Jesus] . 

4  And  it  came  to  pass,  while 
they  were  perplexed  there- 
about,   behold,    two    men 
stood  by  them  in  dazzling 
apparel :  5  and  as  they  were 
affrighted  and  bowed  down 
their   faces   to   the   earth, 


D 


they  said  unto  them,  Why 
seek  ye  the  living  among 
the  dead  ?' 
remember   how    he    spake 
unto  you  when  he  was  yet 
in  Galilee,  7  saying  that  the 
Son  of  man  must  be  de- 
livered up  into  the  hands 
of  sinful  men,  and  be  cruci- 
fied, and  [the  third  day  jrise 
again.    8  And  they  remem- 
bered his  words, 

9  and  returned  from  the 
tomb,  and  told  all  these 
things  to  the  eleven,  and 
to  all  the  rest. 

10  Now  they  were  Mary 
Magdalene,  and  Joanna, 
and  Mary  the  mother  of 
James.2 


§  14.    JESUS  APPEARS  TO  Two  DISCIPLES 


Luke  24:13-35 


13  And    behold,    two    of 
them  were  going  that  very 
day  to  a  village  named  Em- 
maus,  which  was  threescore 
furlongs    from    Jerusalem. 

14  And    they    communed 
with  each  other  of  all  these 
things  which  had  happened. 

15  And  it  came  to  pass, 
while  they  communed  and 
questioned    together,    that 
Jesus  himself  drew  near,  and 
went  with  them.     16  But 
their  eyes  were  holden  that 
they  should  not  know  him. 

17  And  he  said  unto  them, 
What  communications  are 
these  that  ye  have  one  with 
another,  as  ye  walk  ?    And 
they  stood  still,  looking  sad. 

1 8  And  one  of  them,  named 
Cleopas,     answering     said 
unto  him,  Dost  thou  alone 
sojourn  in  Jerusalem  and 


not  know  the  things  which 
are  come  to  pass  there  in 
these  days  ?  19  And  he  said 
unto  them,  What  things? 
And  they  said  unto  him, 

The  things  concerning  Jesus 
the  Nazarene,  who  was  a 
prophet  mighty  in  deed  and 
word  before  God  and  all  the 
people:  20  and  how  the 
chief  priests  and  our  rulers 
delivered  him  up  to  be  con- 
demned to  death,  and  cruci- 
fied him. 

21  But  we  hoped  that  it 
was  he  who  should  redeem 
Israel. 

[Yea  and  besides  all  this,  it 
is  now  the  third  day  since 
these  things  came  to  pass.] 

22  Moreover  certain  women 
of  our  company  amazed  us, 
having  been  early  at  the 


1  Luke  24:60:  [He  is  not  here,  but  is  risen:] 

2  Luke  24:106-12:   and  the  other  women  with  them  told  these  things  unto  the  apostles,     n  And 
these  words  appeared  in  their  sight  as  idle  talk;   and  they  disbelieved  them.     12  [But  Peter  arose,  and 
ran  unto  the  tomb;  and  stooping  and  looking  in,  he  seeth  the  linen  cloths  by  themselves;  and  he  departed 
to  his  home,  wondering  at  that  which  was  come  to  pass.] 

194 


THE   SOURCES   OP  LUKE'S   PASSION-NARRATIVE 


125 


tomb;  23  and  when  they 
found  not  his  body,  they 
came,  saying,  that  they  had 
also  seen  a  vision  of  angels, 
who  said  that  he  was  alive. 

24  And  certain  of  them  that 
were  with  us  went  to  the 
tomb,  and  found  it  even  so 
as  the  women  had  said:  but 
him  they  saw  not. 

25  And  he  said  unto  them, 
O  foolish  men,  and  slow  of 
heart  to  believe  in  all  that 
the  prophets  have  spoken! 

26  Behooved   it   not    the 
Christ  to  suffer  these  things, 
and  to  enter  into  his  glory  ? 

27  And    beginning    from 
Moses   and    from   all   the 
prophets,    he    interpreted 
to  them  in  all  the  scriptures 
the  things  concerning  him- 
self. 

28  And  they  drew  nigh  unto 
the   village,   whither   they 
were  going:  and  he  made  as 
though  he  would  go  f  urtiier. 

29  And   they   constrained 
him,  saying,  Abide  with  us; 
for  it  is  toward  evening, 


and  the  day  is  now  far 
spent.  And  he  went  hi  to 
abide  with  them. 

30  And  it  came  to  pass, 
when  he  had  sat  down  with 
them  to  meat,  he  took  the 
bread    and    blessed;     and 
breaking  it  he  gave  to  them. 

31  And    their    eyes    were 
opened  and  they  knew  him; 
and  he  vanished  out  of  their 
sight.    32   And  they  said 
one  to  another,  Was  not 
our  heart  burning  within  us, 
while  he  spake  to  us  in  the 
way,  while  he  opened  to  us 
the  scriptures  ? 

33  And  they  rose  up  that 
very  hour,  and  returned 
to  Jerusalem,  and  found  the 
eleven  gathered  together, 
and  them  that  were  with 
them,  34  saying,  The  Lord 
is  risen  indeed,  and  hath  ap- 
peared to  Simon.  35  And 
they  rehearsed  the  things 
that  happened  in  the  way, 
and  how  he  was  known  of 
them  hi  the  breaking  of  the 
bread. 


§  15.    JESUS  COMMISSIONS  THE  DISCIPLES 


36  And  as  they  spake  these 
things,  he  himself  stood  in 
the  midst  of  them,  [and 
saith  unto  them,  Peace  be 
unto  you].  37  But  they 
were  terrified  and  affrighted, 
and  supposed  that  they  be- 
held a  spirit. 

38  And  he  said  unto  them, 
Why  are  ye  troubled?  and 
wherefore  do  questionings 
arise  in  your  heart  ?  39  See 
my  hands  and  my  feet, 
that  it  is  I  myself:  handle 
me,  and  see;  for  a  spirit 
hath  not  flesh  and  bones, 
as  ye  behold  me  having. 

40  [And  when  he  had  said 
this,  he  showed  them  his 
hands  and  his  feet.] 

41  And    while    they    still 
disbelieved    for    joy,    and 
wondered,    he    said    unto 


Luke  24:36-49 


them,  Have  ye  here  any- 
thing to  eat?  42  And 
they  gave  him  a  piece  of  a 
broiled  fish.  43  And  he 
took  it,  and  ate  before 
them. 

44  And  he  said  unto  them, 
These  are  my  words  which 
I  spake  unto  you,  while  I 
was  yet  with  you,  that  all 
things  must  needs  be  ful- 
filled, which  are  written  in 
the  law  of  Moses,  and  the 
prophets,  and  the  psalms, 
concerning  me.  45  Then 
opened  he  their  mind,  that 
they  might  understand  the 
scriptures; 

46  and  he  said  unto  them, 
Thus  it  is  written,  that  the 
Christ  should  suffer,  and 
rise  again  from  the  dead 
[the  third  day]; 


195 


126 


HISTORICAL  AND   LINGUISTIC   STUDIES 


§15.    JESUS  COMMISSIONS  THE  DISCIPLES — Continued 


47  and  that  repentance  and 
remission  of  sins  should  be 
preached  in  his  name  unto 
all  the  nations,  beginning 
from  Jerusalem. 

48  Ye  are  witnesses  of  these 

things. 


49  And  behold,  I  send  forth 
the  promise  of  my  Father 
upon  you:  but  tarry  ye 
in  the  city,  until  ye  be 
clothed  with  power  from 
on  high. 


§  1 6.    THE  ASCENSION 
Luke  24:50-53 


50  And  he  led  them  out 
until  they  were  over  against 
Bethany:  and  he  lifted  up 
his  hands,  and  blessed 
them.  51  And  it  came 
to  pass,  while  he  blessed 
them,  he  parted  from  them, 


[and  was  carried  up  into 
heaven]. 

52  And  they  [worshiped 
him,  and]  returned  to  Jeru- 
salem with  great  joy:  53 
and  were  continually  in  the 
temple,  blessing  God. 


A  NON-MARKAN  LOGION  PROBABLY  NOT  DRAWN  FROM  J 
Luke  20:166-18 


And  when  they  heard  it, 
they  said,  God  forbid. 
17  But  he  looked  upon 
them,  and  said,  What  then 
is  this  that  is  written, 

[The     stone     which 
builders  rejected, 


the 


The  same  was  made 
head  of  the  corner  ? 
1 8  Every  one  that  falleth  on 
that  stone  shall  be  broken 
to  pieces;  but  on  whomso- 
ever it  shall  fall,  it  will 
scatter  him  as  dust. 


the 


196 


INDEX 


Addition  of  incidents,  23,  107 
Apocalyptic  Discourse,  26,  35  ff.,  102; 

language  of,  82 
Aramaic:    colors   language  of  J,   67  f., 

80  ff.;  not  language  of  J,  86 
Authorship  of  J,  90  ff . 

Christology  of  J,  71  f.,  94!.;  death  of 
Jesus,  47  ff.,  72,  95;  humanity  of 
Jesus,  71,  94;  Jesus  as  teacher,  71; 
messiahship  of  Jesus,  71  f.,  95,  99;  the 
Resurrection,  51  ff.,  72 

Conflation,  17,  19,  25  f.,  108 

Date  of  J  document,  98 

Disciples,  74,  78;  persecution  of,  73,  93, 

98 
Doublets,  14,  17  f.,  20,  84 

Ecclesiastical  situation,  93  f . 
Eschatology  of  J,  72  f.,  95  f . 
Eucharist,  39  f .,  94 

Farewell  discourse,  41 

Galilean  source:  order,  9,  13  f.;  peculiar 
materials,  i2f.;  style,  10,  15;  view- 
point, 10  f. 

Gentiles:  disapproval  of,  73,  74,  9°; 
overthrow  of,  37 

Gospels,  Synoptic:  theory  of  sources  of, 
13;  relation  of  sources  to  J,  100  f. 

Herod  Agrippa  I,  92,  93 
Herod  Antipas,  45,  93 
Historicity  of  J  document,  99  f . 

Jerusalem:  interest  in,  91;  Jesus7 
ministry  in,  33  f.,  74,  78;  overthrow  of, 
26,  33  f-,  73,  78,91,  96  ff-,  ioi 

Jerusalem  Document:  authorship  of, 
90  ff.;  contents,  28  ff.,  31  ff.,  54,  87  ff«, 
n6ff.;  date  of,  98;  definite  order  in, 
27  f.,  78  f.;  87;  historicity  of,  99  f.; 
independence  of,  70,  74  f.;  literary 
form  of,  27  ff.,  70,  85  f.;  purpose  of, 
98  f.;  style  of,  62  ff.,  80  ff.;  unity  of, 

197] 


77  ff.;     viewpoint  of,    70  ff.,    74,    78, 

90  f.,    92  ff.,    98  f.;     vocabulary    of, 

56  ff.,  79  ff.,  noff. 
Jews:  regarded  as  friendly,  73  f.,  90,  91, 

92;  rulers  of,  44  f.,  74,  90,  92 
John,  gospel,  relation  to  J,  29,  42,  103  f., 
.  108 

Language  of  J  document:  characteristics, 
56  ff.,  62,  79,  80  ff.,  noff.;  synonyms 
in,  59  ff.,  61;  vocabulary,  noff. 

Luke,  evangelist:  literary  habits,  65., 
19  f.,  89;  purpose,  5,  99;  viewpoint, 

74  f. 

Luke,  gospel:  characteristic  language, 
62,  66  f.;  editorial  additions  in,  15  f., 
87;  peculiar  materials  of,  n  ff. 

Luke  19:1-27,  part  of  P  source,  32!., 

75  f- 

Mark,    gospel:     relation    to    J,    ioi  f.; 

use  by  Luke,  language,  7  f.,  21  f.,  55; 

order  and  connection,  6,  107 
Matthew,  gospel:  relation  to  J,  ioi,  102, 

108;  sources  used  by  Luke,  8  ff.,  13  ff. 

Omitted  incidents,  23  f.,  107 

Particularism,  73  f.,  oo  f. 
Passion-Narrative  of  Luke:   agreements 

with  Mark  in,  21  ff.,  107;    conflations 

in,  25  f.,  108;  limits  of,  2,  21,  32  f. 
Perean  source:    peculiar  materials,  13; 

style,  10, 15,  76;  viewpoint,  iof.,  75  f. 
Persecutions,  36  f.,  41,  73,  92  f.,  98 
Peter:  denial  of  Jesus,  44;  imprisonment 

of,  92,  93;  primacy  of,  41,  74,  78,  94, 

IOI 

Political  situation,  93 

Principles  for  discriminating  J  materials, 

32 
Principles  of  literary  procedure,  Luke's, 

19  f. 


Q  document:    diversities  within,   9ff.; 
not  a  unity,  9 


127 


128  INDEX 

Resurrection  appearances,  51  ff.,  72,  75,  Textual  corruption,  3,  103 

91  Theology  of  J  source,  70 

Transpositions,  24  f.,  27,  78,  107 

Sacraments,  94  Trial  of  JesuSj  4a  44 
Salvation,  idea  of,  73 

Style  of  J  document:  Aramaisms,  67  ff.,  Unity  of  J  document,  77  ff.;  of  Q  docu- 

80  ff.;    descriptive  details,   62  f.,   64;  ment,  9 

grouping,    64;     not    Luke's,    66  ff.; 

repetition,  63;  syntax,  64  f.  World- view  of  J  document,  70  ff. 


198 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  FINE~OF  25  CENTS 

AN    1H1*'"»*J  T0   RETURN 

W1U.  BE  ASSESSED  FOR   "'UURET  ^ 

BOOK   ON   THE  °*E  THE  FOURTH 

SEVENTH    OAV 


LD  21-100jn-7,'33 


VC  4062* 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


